United States Department of Agriculture

Forest 

Service 

Southwestern 

Region

MB-R3-05-6e

December 2013

Final Environmental 

Impact Statement for 

the Rosemont Copper 

Project

A Proposed Mining Operation 

Coronado National Forest 

Pima County, Arizona

Volume 6 - Appendix
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, 

marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, 

political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any 

public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means of communication of program information (Braille, 

large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and 

TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or 

(202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

Printed on recycled paper – December 2013 
Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Rosemont Copper Project

Coronado National Forest

Pima County, Arizona

Lead Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Cooperating Agencies: Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, Saguaro 

National Park, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory – Fred 

Lawrence Whipple Observatory, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

U.S. Department of the Air Force Davis-Monthan Air Force Base 

162nd Fighter Airwing, Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality, Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources, 

Arizona Department of Transportation, Arizona Department of Water 

Resources, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Arizona Geological 

Survey, Arizona State Land Department, Arizona State Mine 

Inspector, Arizona State Parks, Pima County, City of Tucson, Town 

of Sahuarita 

Responsible Official: Jim Upchurch, Coronado National Forest, Forest Supervisor

300 W. Congress St.

Tucson, AZ 85701

For Information Contact: Bev Everson, Interdisciplinary Team Leader 

300 W. Congress St.

Tucson, AZ 85701

(520) 388-8300

Abstract: This final environmental impact statement (FEIS) documents the analysis of six 

alternatives (including a “no action” alternative) that was developed for the Rosemont Copper 

Project analysis. Alternative 4 – Barrel Alternative is the U.S. Forest Service preferred alternative. 

The Notice of Intent to prepare this document was published in the Federal Register on March 13, 

2008. The public comment period was subsequently extended with a Notice of Intent that was 

published in the Federal Register on April 29, 2008. The draft environmental impact statement 

(DEIS) was released for public comment with a Notice of Availability (NOA) on October 19, 2011. 

The NOA was later revised to update meeting information and published on December 6, 2011. 

Subsequently, the comment period was extended with a Notice of Extension published in the Federal 

Register on January 27, 2012. 

The Rosemont Copper Project proposes to mine copper and associated minerals on the Nogales 

Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest. The proposed activities include an amendment to 

the 1986 “Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.”

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project i 

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Documents

forest plan “Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan,” 

as amended (U.S. Forest Service 1986)

preliminary MPO preliminary mine plan of operations (WestLand Resources Inc. 2007)

Other abbreviations

°F degrees Fahrenheit

ΔE color difference index

AAC Arizona Administrative Code

ACC Arizona Corporation Commission

ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

ADOT Arizona Department of Transportation

ADWR Arizona Department of Water Resources

AGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department

AGS Arizona Geological Survey

ARS Arizona Revised Statutes

ASLD Arizona State Land Department

Augusta Resource Augusta Resource Corporation

AUM animal unit month

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CAA Clean Air Act

CAFÉ corporate average fuel economy

CD compact disc

CaCO3 calcium carbonate

CEC Certificate of Environmental Compatibility

Census U.S. Census

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project iii
Acronyms and Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CH4 methane

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

CWA Clean Water Act

dB decibel

dBA A-weighted decibel

DEIS draft environmental impact statement

EIS environmental impact statement

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

FEIS final environmental impact statement

Forest Service U.S. Forest Service

FSH Forest Service Handbook

FSM Forest Service Manual

g the acceleration due to gravity equaling 32 feet per second squared

GIS geographic information system

GPS global positioning system

HPTP historic properties treatment plan

Hz hertz

I- interstate

ID team interdisciplinary team

IMPLAN Impact Analysis for Planning

iv Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project
Acronyms and Abbreviations

kHz kilohertz

kV kilovolt

lb/mile pound per mile

LED light emitting diode

m3

/m2 cubic meter(s) per square meter

mg/L milligram(s) per liter

μg/m3 microgram(s) per cubic meter

MOA memorandum of agreement

MOU memorandum of understanding

mpg mile(s) per gallon

MPO mine plan of operations

MSHA Mine Safety and Health Administration

MW megawatt(s)

NAAQS national ambient air quality standards

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFS National Forest System

NFSR National Forest System road

N2O nitrous oxide

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOx nitrogen oxides

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

O3 ozone

Pb lead

PM2.5 particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project v
Acronyms and Abbreviations

PM10 particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter

REMI Regional Economic Models Incorporated

ROD record of decision

Rosemont Copper Rosemont Copper Company

Rosemont Copper Project EIS Rosemont Copper Project Environmental Impact Statement

ROW right-of-way

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SR State Route

TCP traditional cultural property

TEP Tucson Electric Power Company

the Coronado Coronado National Forest (the agency)

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S.C. United States Code

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VOC volatile organic compound

WUS waters of the United States

vi Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project
Contents

Appendix

Volume 5

A. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Section 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis................................A-1

B. Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (includes U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ 

Habitat Mitigation Plan) ...........................................................................................................B-1

C. Visual Simulations....................................................................................................................C-1

D. Memorandum of Agreement (prepared under Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act) ......................................................................................................................D-1

E. Tribal Consultation ................................................................................................................... E-1

Volume 6

F. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion.................................................................. F-1

G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS ...................................................................G-1

We have made every attempt to make these documents accessible to people with disabilities. 

If you cannot fully access the information on a particular page, please call us at (520)388-8300.

USDA Target Center

The USDA TARGET Center converts USDA information and documents into alternative formats, 

including Braille, large print, video description, diskette, and audiotape. For more information, visit 

the TARGET Center's Web site or call the Center at (202) 720-2600 (Voice/TTY).

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project vii

F. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Biological Opinion 

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project F-1

United States Department of the Interior

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Arizona Ecological Services Office 

2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 

Phoenix, Arizona 85021-4951 

Telephone: (602) 242-0210 FAX: (602) 242-2513 

In Reply Refer To: 

AESO/SE 

22410-2009-F-0389 

October 30, 2013 

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Coronado National Forest 

300 West Congress Street 

Tucson, Arizona 85701 

RE: Final Biological and Conference Opinion for the Rosemont Copper Mine, Pima County, 

Arizona 

Dear Mr. Upchurch: 

Thank you for your request for formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544), as 

amended (Act). Your initial request was dated June 6, 2012, and was received by us on June 8, 

2012. A subsequent request for conference was dated October 19, 2012 and received by us on 

October 22, 2012. Additional consultation information dated February 8, 2013, was received by 

us on the same date. Further information regarding conference was transmitted to us via 

electronic mail on October 22, 2013. At issue are the effects that may result from your proposed 

approval of the Mine Plan of Operations for the Rosemont Copper Company Project in Pima 

County, Arizona. 

Your June 6, 2012, October 19, 2012, and February 8, 2013, letters concluded that proposed 

mining activities associated with the Barrel Alternative (as modified; hereafter referred to as the 

proposed action for the purposes of this consultation) may affect, and will likely adversely affect, 

the endangered Gila chub (Gila intermedia) and its critical habitat, the endangered Gila 

topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis), the endangered Huachuca water umbel 

(Lilaeopsis schaffneriana var. recurva), the endangered southwestern willow flycatcher 

(Empidonax traillii extimus) and its critical habitat, the threatened Chiricahua leopard frog 

(Lithobates chiricahuensis), the endangered lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris curasoae 

yerbabuenae), the endangered jaguar (Panthera onca), the endangered ocelot (Felis pardalis), 

the endangered Pima pineapple cactus (Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina), and, via 

conference, proposed critical habitat for the jaguar and the candidate (at that time) yellow-billed 

cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). Your letter also requested our concurrence with your 

determination that the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the 

threatened Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida). We concur with your determination 

and have provided our rationale in Appendix A. 
2

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

We will conference, in response to your October 19, 2012, request, pursuant to section 7(a)(4) of 

the Act and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR §402.10(d), on proposed critical habitat for 

the jaguar. We issued a proposed rule to list the narrow-headed gartersnake (Thamnophis 

rufipunctatus) and northern Mexican gartersnake (T. eques megalops) as threatened species and a 

proposed rule to designate critical habitat (78 FR 41500 and 78 FR 41550, respectively) on July 

10, 2013. We published a proposed rule (78 FR 61622) to list the yellow-billed cuckoo as a 

threatened species on October 3, 2013. These species (and the former’s proposed critical habitat) 

occur within portions of the area that will be affected by the proposed action. In accordance with 

an October 22, 2013, communication from your agency, this document will not include 

conference on these species. 

This draft biological and conference opinion is based on information provided in: (1) your 

September 2011 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project, a 

Proposed Mining Operation, Coronado National Forest, Pima County, Arizona (Draft EIS); (2) 

your June 2012 Biological Assessment, Rosemont Copper Company Project, Santa Rita 

Mountains, Nogales Ranger District (BA); (3) your October 2012 Supplement to the Biological 

Assessment, Proposed Rosemont Copper Mine, Santa Rita Mountains, Arizona, Coronado 

National Forest (Supplemental BA); (4) your February 2013 Supplement to the Biological 

Assessment – Proposed Rosemont Copper Mine - Santa Rita Mountains, Pima County, Arizona - 

Nogales Ranger District (Second Supplemental BA); (5) your October 22, 2013, determination 

that that the proposed action would not jeopardize the proposed-threatened northern Mexican 

gartersnake or yellow-billed cuckoo nor adversely modify or destroy proposed critical habitat for 

the former; (6) the results of discussions and exchanges of scientific information between our 

respective agencies, other Federal, State, and local agencies, the Rosemont Copper Company, 

and consultants; and (7) other published and unpublished sources of information. Literature 

cited in this biological opinion is not a complete bibliography of all literature available on the 

species of concern, and its effects, or on other subjects considered in this opinion. A complete 

administrative record of this consultation is on file at this office. 

Please note that this biological and conference opinion does not rely on the regulatory definition 

of “destruction or adverse modification” of critical habitat at 50 CFR 402.02. Instead, we have 

relied upon the statute and the August 6, 2004, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in 

Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (No. 03-35279) to complete our 

analysis with respect to critical habitat. Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the ESA “as 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 and biological features essential to 

the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or 

protection; and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is 

listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.” We 

have also relied upon the Consultation Handbook which provides guidance on determining 

adverse modification of critical habitat and jeopardy pursuant to the following: “Adverse effects 

on individuals of a species or constituent elements or segments of critical habitat generally do 

not result in jeopardy or adverse modification determinations unless that loss, when added to the 

environmental baseline, is likely to result in significant adverse effects throughout the species’ 
3

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

range, or appreciably diminish the capability of the critical habitat to satisfy essential 

requirements of the species” (FWS and NMFS 1998). 

Also note that, in reaching our findings that there is a reasonable certainty that lesser long-nosed 

bat, Chiricahua leopard frog, Gila chub, Gila topminnow, and jaguar will be incidentally taken, 

we considered the following: 

 Section 9 of the Act and our implementing regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) at 50 CFR part 17 prohibit the ``take'' of fish or wildlife species listed as 

endangered or threatened. 

 Take of listed fish or wildlife is defined under the Act as ``to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 

shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct''. 

 The term ``harass'' is defined in the regulations as ``an intentional or negligent act or 

omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an 

extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not 

limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering'' (50 CFR 17.3). 

 The term ``harm'' is defined in the regulations as ``an act which actually kills or injures 

wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it 

actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, 

including breeding, feeding, and sheltering'' (50 CFR 17.3). 

 “Incidental take” refers to takings that result from, but are not the purpose of, carrying 

out an otherwise lawful activity conducted by the Federal agency or applicant”(50 CFR 

402.02).

Consultation History 

(most recent listed first) 

October 28, 2013: We received a copy of an October 25, 2013, letter from the Arizona Game and 

Fish Department (AGFD) to the Forest Service (USFS). The letter described an agreement, in 

principle, for AGFD to work with and receive lands and funding from the Rosemont Copper 

Company to implement measures to mitigate the project’s effects to State trust resources.

October 25, 2013: We received an updated version of the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan from 

SWCA, Inc., on behalf of the USFS. The plan, once finalized, will appear in the Final EIS as 

Appendix B. Appendix B will not be included in this Final BO, as it is subject to ongoing 

revisions, but we did consider its contents in our effects analyses. 

October 24, 2013: We received your letter to AGFD stating that references to the State agency 

were to be removed from the Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS). The FWS had 

already implemented the AGFD request. 
4

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

October 23, 2013: 

We received an electronic mail message from your staff stating that formal conference 

consultation for the yellow-billed cuckoo and northern Mexican gartersnake would not be 

pursued, as it had been determined that the proposed action would not jeopardize either 

proposed-threatened species nor adversely modify or destroy proposed critical habitat for the 

latter.

October 8, 2013: 

We received an October 3, 2013, letter from AGFD requesting that the State agency be removed 

from all conservation measure and mitigation-related references in the Final EIS and Final BO. 

October 3, 2013: 

We published a proposed rule (78 FR 61622) to list the yellow-billed cuckoo as a threatened 

species. 

September 26, 2013: We received a revised version of Appendix B, from SWCA, Inc., on behalf 

of the USFS. Also note that an earlier draft version of Appendix B was included in our July 3, 

2013, Draft BO. 

September 19 through October 22, 2013: 

We received updated hydrologic criteria and conducted additional analyses to employ those data 

in the respective Amount or Extent of Take sections for the Gila chub and Gila topminnow. 

September 18, 2013: 

We received information on the number of additional Pima pineapple cactus and acreage of the 

species’ habitat that will be affected by the rerouting of a utility right-of-way serving the project 

area. 

September 13 and 14, 2013: 

We received a series of comments and updated maps and graphics prepared by SWCA, Inc. on 

behalf of the Forest Service for incorporation into the final BO. 

September 13, 2013: 

We met with your staff to discuss outstanding issues related to transmitting a final BO. We 

agreed to revisit the Amount or Extent of Take subsections for the Gila chub and Gila 

topminnow, pending receipt of updated groundwater-based criteria. We also viewed maps 

describing a change in the alignment of the utility right-of-way. 

August 27, 2013: 

We received additional Draft BO comments from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) via 

electronic mail. 

August 7, 2013: 

We received input from your staff’s and SWCA, regarding the use of monitoring wells to assist 

in tracking take of Gila chub and Gila topminnow via electronic mail. 
5

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

August 5, 2013: 

We received your and SWCA’s review of Rosemont Copper Company’s comments on the Draft 

BO. 

July 24, 2013: 

We received comments on the Draft BO from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) via 

electronic mail. 

July 22, 2013: 

We met with your staff, SWCA, representatives of the Rosemont Copper Company, WestLand 

Resources, Inc., and the Corps to discuss the Draft BO. 

July 19, 2013: 

We received your initial comments on the Draft BO via electronic mail. 

July 18, 2013: 

We received initial comments on the Draft BO, from your agency’s legal counsel via electronic 

mail. 

July 16, 2013: 

We received AGFD’s comments on the preliminary, administrative draft BO via electronic mail. 

July 16, 2013: 

We were forwarded the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) July 15, 2013, comments on the 

Draft BO by your staff via electronic mail. 

July 15, 2013: 

We received the Rosemont Copper Company’s comments on the Draft BO via electronic mail.

July 9, 2013: 

We informed your staff in advance of the July 10, 2013, publication of a proposed rule (78 FR 

41500) to designate the northern Mexican and narrow-headed gartersnakes as threatened species 

and to designate critical habitat (78 FR 41550) for the species. 

July 3, 2013: 

We transmitted a Draft Biological Opinion to you, and note that it did not include analyses based 

on revisions to proposed jaguar critical habitat (78 FR 39237) (see event of July 1, 2013, below). 

July 1, 2013: 

We announced: (1) revisions to our proposed designation of critical habitat for the jaguar; (2) the 

availability of a draft economic analysis; (3) the availability of a draft environmental assessment; 

(4) an amended required determinations section for the proposal; and (5) a reopening of the 

comment period. 
6

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

June 26, 2013: 

We received your comments on our June 21, 2013, preliminary, administrative draft analysis of 

the proposed action’s effects to the jaguar and its critical habitat via electronic mail. You also 

forwarded the comments made by the Rosemont Copper Company. 

June 25, 2013: 

We received comments on our June 21, 2013, preliminary, administrative draft analysis of the 

proposed action’s effects to the jaguar and its critical habitat from Rosemont Copper Company’s 

counsel via electronic mail. 

June 21, 2013: 

We transmitted, via electronic mail, a preliminary, administrative draft analysis of the proposed 

action’s effects to the jaguar and its critical habitat. This section was not included in our April 

19, 2013, or May 20, 2013, transmittals. 

May 30, 2013: 

Our respective staffs as well as representatives of AGFD concluded negotiations regarding 

potential updates to the Proposed Conservation Measures for the Chiricahua leopard frog, finally 

determining that the measures would appear in the Draft BO as Terms and Conditions. 

May 30, 2013: 

Your staff transmitted to us, via electronic mail, four documents responding to our May 20, 

2013, preliminary, administrative draft effects analyses for aquatic and riparian ecosystem and 

the southwestern willow flycatcher. The review documents included: (1) a package entitled 

Comments from Rosemont Copper on Preliminary Draft Biological Opinion Language 

Regarding Aquatic and Riparian Habitat, and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher authored by 

WestLand and incorporating additional SWCA reviews comments; (2) FS and SWCA reviews of 

the Effects to Aquatic Ecosystems, Effects to Riparian Ecosystems, and Effects to the 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. 

May 20, 2013: 

We transmitted, via electronic mail, preliminary, administrative draft analyses of the proposed 

action’s effects to aquatic ecosystems, riparian ecosystems, and the southwestern willow 

flycatcher. These sections were not included in our April 19, 2013, transmittal. 

May 17, 2013: 

We received, via electronic mail, reviews of the Description of the Preferred Alternative and the 

Description of the Proposed Action conducted by SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) 

on behalf of the Forest Service. The reviews were also accompanied by a brief description of the 

heretofore unknown Sycamore Connector Road component of the proposed action. 

May 7, 2013: 

Your staff transmitted, via electronic mail, additional comments on the preliminary, 

administrative draft BO. 
7

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

May 6, 2013: 

We received the Rosemont Copper Company’s collected comments on the April 19, 2013, 

preliminary, administrative draft BO from WestLand Resources, Inc. (WestLand) via electronic 

mail.

April 19, 2013: 

We transmitted a preliminary, administrative draft of this BO to you via electronic mail. The 

preliminary draft did not contain analyses of effects to aquatic ecosystems, riparian ecosystems, 

the southwestern willow flycatcher, and the jaguar. 

April 12, 2013: 

We received Rosemont Copper Company’s comments on the April 1, 2013, draft narrative of the 

Description of the Proposed Action and Description of the Proposed Conservation Measures. 

April 9, 2013: 

We transmitted a letter to you stating that we would transmit the core findings of our eventual 

Draft BO to you during the week of April 15, 2013. The core findings would include, at a 

minimum, the respective affected species’ Environmental Baseline and Conclusion section and, 

when applicable, an Incidental Take Statement including Reasonable and Prudent Measures (or a 

Reasonable and Prudent Alternative), and Terms and Conditions section. 

April 8, 2013: 

We received electronic mail messages from SWCA containing a review of the April 1, 2013, 

draft narrative of the Description of the Proposed Action and Description of the Proposed 

Conservation Measures and an updated mitigation and monitoring table. 

April 1, 2013: 

We transmitted a draft narrative of the Description of the Proposed Action and Description of the 

Proposed Conservation Measures to you. We received your response on April 8, 2013. We also 

participated in a conference call with your staff as well as representatives of Rosemont Copper 

Company, including their biological consultant, WestLand and counsel, Norm James. 

March 29, 2013: 

We participated in a conference call with your staff as well as representatives of Rosemont 

Copper Company, WestLand and Norm James. 

March 14, 2013: 

We received a copy of correspondence entitled Clarification and Supplemental Information in 

Support of Supplemental Biological Assessment Prepared for the Coronado National Forest and 

SWCA, Inc., for the Rosemont Copper Project sent from WestLand. 

February 12, 2013: 

We met with AGFD to discuss the consultation. 
8

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

February 8, 2013: 

We received your February 2013 Supplement to the Biological Assessment – Proposed Rosemont 

Copper Mine - Santa Rita Mountains, Pima County, Arizona - Nogales Ranger District (Second 

Supplemental BA). 

January 31, 2013: 

We met with your staff, the AGFD, and Westland Resources, Inc. to discuss further revisions to 

the proposed conservation measures. 

January 23, 2013: 

We met with your staff, biologists from SWCA, and representatives of the Rosemont Copper 

Company to assist in finalizing a second supplemental Biological Assessment. 

January 9, 2013: 

We transmitted a letter to you discussing the outcome of the January 3, 2012, meeting and 

addressing the concerns found in Norman D. James’ December 19, 2012, letter. 

January 3, 2013: 

We met with your staff, biologists from SWCA, and representatives of the Rosemont Copper 

Company to discuss conservation measures and the content of an anticipated second 

supplemental Biological Assessment. 

December 21, 2012: 

We received a December 19, 2012, letter from Norman D. James of Fennemore Craig P.C., 

counsel for the Rosemont Copper Company, regarding our December 13, 2012, letter to you. 

December 21, 2012: 

We received documents entitled Rosemont Copper Project Biological Assessment Supplement - 

Cienega Creek Watershed Habitat Restoration And Enhancement Program, Rosemont Copper 

Project: Biological Assessment Supplement - Lesser Long-Nosed Bat Forage And Roost 

Conservation Measures, and Rosemont Copper Project: Section 7 Consultation Grazing 

Management Conservation Measures from Westland Resources, Inc. 

December 13, 2012: 

We transmitted a letter to you documenting outstanding information needs requesting additional 

time to complete formal consultation on the proposed action. 

December 7, 2012: 

We received a revised version of the Rosemont Copper Project: Potential Effects of Lighting 

Associated with the Rosemont Project on Endangered Species from Westland Resources, Inc. 

December 5, 2012: 

We received a document entitled Rosemont Copper Project: Potential Effects of Lighting 

Associated with the Rosemont Project on Endangered Species from Westland Resources, Inc. 
9

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

November 18, 2012: 

We met with your staff and staff from SWCA to receive information regarding the biological 

effects resulting from the groundwater impacts discussed at the aforementioned October 18, 

2012, meeting. 

November 14, 2012: 

We received a documents entitled Rosemont Copper Project: Conservation Measures – Water 

Features and Rosemont Copper Project: Potential Effects Of The Rosemont Project on Lower 

Cienega Creek from Westland Resources, Inc. 

November 13, 2012: 

We met with your staff, biologists from SWCA, Inc., and representatives of the Rosemont 

Copper Company to discuss conservation measures and progress in the consultation. We 

received a document entitled Rosemont Copper Project: Conservation Measures – Water 

Resources from Westland Resources, Inc. 

November 9, 2012: 

We received documents entitled Rosemont Copper Project: Conservation Measures Provided by 

Clean Water Act Section 404 Mitigation and Rosemont Copper Project: Potential Effects of the 

Rosemont Project to Jaguar and Proposed Jaguar Critical Habitat from Westland Resources, 

Inc. via electronic mail. 

November 8, 2012: 

We received the draft Rosemont Copper Company Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 

Permit No. SPL-2008-00816-MB (HMMP) prepared by Westland Resources, Inc. 

October 22, 2012: 

We received, via electronic mail, your October 19, 2012, letter requesting formal conference on 

the proposed critical habitat for the jaguar and southwestern willow flycatcher. Your October 

19, 2012, letter also transmitted your October 2012 Supplement to the Biological Assessment, 

Proposed Rosemont Copper Mine, Santa Rita Mountains, Arizona, Coronado National Forest 

(Supplemental BA). 

October 18, 2012: 

We attended a forum attended by your staff and well representatives of the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), SWCA, Inc., the Rosemont Copper 

Company, Tetra Tech, Engineering Analysis, Inc., and SRK Consulting to discuss the validity 

and results of groundwater modeling efforts associated with proposed action. These analyses 

form part of the basis of the BA and Supplemental BA’s analyses of effects to aquatic and 

riparian species. 
10

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

September 13, 2012: 

We received, via electronic mail, your September 12, 2012, granting of the 60-day extension we 

requested on August 29, 2012. 

September 6, 2012: 

We met with your staff, biologists from SWCA, and representatives of the Rosemont Copper 

Company to discuss conference consultation on proposed critical habitat for the jaguar (77 FR 

50214). 

August 29, 2012: 

We transmitted a request for a 60-day extension to the consultation timeline, stating we would 

deliver a Draft BO by November 5, 2012 and, following timely receipt of your comments, a 

Final BO by December 20, 2012. 

August 2, 2012: 

My staff met with your staff and other Cooperating Agencies (as defined under the National 

Environmental Policy Act; NEPA) to discuss the biological outcomes of the proposed action’s 

effects to surface and groundwater hydrology and to help develop conservation measures and 

monitoring programs for them. It should be noted that the FWS is not a formal Cooperating 

Agency. 

July 24, 2012: 

My staff participated in a meeting with your staff and the Cooperating Agencies to assist in the 

development of mitigation measures for the impacts of the propose action. 

July 9, 2012: 

My staff participated in a meeting with your staff and the Cooperating Agencies to assist in the 

development of mitigation measures for the impacts of the proposed action. 

June 28, 2012: 

My staff participated in a meeting with your staff and the Cooperating Agencies to assist in the 

development of protocols to verify impacts to riparian resources and monitor those effects for the 

life of the proposed action. 

June 11, 2012: 

My staff participated in a meeting with your staff and the Cooperating Agencies to assist in the 

development of mitigation measures for the impacts of the proposed action. 

July 20, 2012: 

We transmitted a letter to you indicating that we had received all of the information required of 

you to initiate formal consultation required by the regulations governing section 7(a)(2) 

interagency consultation at 50 CFR §402.14. 
11

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

May 24, 2012: 

My staff met with staff from the U.S. Geological Survey water resource and geology disciplines 

to discuss the hydrologic effects of the proposed action as well as the monitoring needed to 

measure them. 

May 16, 2012: 

We transmitted you a letter containing our review of the January 2012 deliberative Draft 

Biological Assessment, Rosemont Copper Project, Santa Rita Mountains, Nogales Ranger 

District (Draft BA), including recommended conservation measures. 

April 9, 2012: 

We met with AGFD staff to jointly develop conservation measures for our respective trust 

species. 

March 8, 2012: 

We met with your staff as well as representatives of the AGFD, Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM), SWCA, Inc., Rosemont Copper Company, and Westland Resources, Inc. to be 

presented with a groundwater model overview and to engage in continued discussions on the 

Draft BA. 

March 5, 2012: 

My staff transmitted comments regarding the Draft BA’s effects analysis for the lesser longnosed bat to your staff via electronic mail. 

February 29, 2012: 

My staff transmitted comments regarding the Draft BA’s effects analysis for the Mexican spotted 

owl to your staff via electronic mail. 

February 14, 2012: 

We met with your staff as well as representatives of the AGFD,BLM, SWCA, Inc., Rosemont 

Copper Company, and Westland Resources, Inc. to engage in initial discussions on the content 

of the Draft BA. 

January 25, 2012: 

We received the electronic version of your Draft BA

January 19, 2012: 

We transmitted a letter (File No. 02EAAZ00-2012-CPA-0015) to the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (Corps), commenting on Public Notice 02EAAZ00-2012-CPA-0015. Our letter, a 

copy of which was provided to you, preliminarily identified our concerns with the proposed 

action’s effects to threatened and endangered species. 
12

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

October 11, 2011: 

My staff met with representatives of the Rosemont Copper Company near the mine site to 

discuss the project and engage in early discussions on potential conservation measures. 

August 24, 2011: 

Our respective staffs met with representative of the Rosemont Copper Company and Westland 

Resources to discuss the potentially affected species and conceptual conservation measures. 

January 11, 2011: 

Our staff met with representative of the Rosemont Copper Company and Westland Resources to 

receive a project overview and visit the proposed mine site. 

October 18, 2010: 

We met with your staff to discuss the threatened and endangered species potentially affected by 

the proposed action. 

December 10, 2009: 

My staff participated in a field trip to examine issues related to the biological outcomes of the 

proposed action’s hydrologic effects.

November 23, 2009: 

My staff participated in a Karst formation and groundwater hydrology discussion with staff from 

Arizona State Parks and other agencies. 

November 19, 2009: 

My staff participated in a meeting with your staff and the Cooperating Agencies to discuss the 

potential for acquisition of off-site lands to mitigate the impacts of the proposed action. 

October 13, 2009: 

Staff from our agencies, AGFD, and representatives of the Rosemont Copper Company attended 

a site visit to examine habitat for bats, including lesser long-nosed bats. 

September 18, 2009: 

Staff from our agencies, AGFD, and representatives of the Rosemont Copper Company attended 

a site visit to examine habitat for talussnails (Sonorella spp.). 

September 15, 2009: 

My staff participated in a site visit to examine Chiricahua leopard frog habitat within the 

proposed mine site and on adjacent ranchlands. 

September 1, 2009: –

Staff from our agencies, the AGFD, and representatives of the Rosemont Copper Company 

attended a site visit to examine habitat for Chiricahua leopard frogs. 
13

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

August 5, 2009: 

We met with your staff as well as representatives of, SWCA, Inc., Rosemont Copper Company, 

and Westland Resources, Inc. to begin discussions regarding the proposed action’s effects to 

threatened and endangered species and the preparation of a BA to address those effects. This 

meeting also served as an initiation of early consultation pursuant to section 7(a)(3) of the Act 

and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR § 402.11. 
14

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

BIOLOGICAL AND CONFERENCE OPINION 

Description of the Proposed Action 

Rosemont Copper Company (Rosemont) submitted a proposed mine plan of operations (MPO) to 

the Coronado National Forest, an administrative unit of the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service (Forest Service), for development of the Rosemont ore deposit. The proposed 

mine site is located on the east side of the Santa Rita Mountains, approximately 30 miles south of 

Tucson, Arizona. Activity is proposed on approximately 995 acres of private land owned by 

Rosemont Copper, 3,670 acres of Coronado National Forest land, and 75 acres of land 

administered by the Arizona State Land Department. This area includes a utility corridor that is 

needed to provide power and water to the project area. The mine life, including construction, 

operation, reclamation, and closure, is approximately 25 to 30 years. 

Two Federal agencies have authority regarding MPO approval: the Forest Service and U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers. The Forest Service is responsible for administering Coronado 

National Forest land, including the approval of MPOs under that agency’s surface management 

regulations. The Corps of Engineers is responsible for administering Section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act. Rosemont has applied for a permit from the Corps of Engineers to discharge tailings 

and waste rock into ephemeral drainages that are considered to be waters of the United States. 

The agency actions thus consist of approval of an MPO and a permit under Section 404 of the 

CWA. 

The Forest Service, as the lead agency and land manager for the Coronado National Forest, 

prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project, a 

Proposed Mining Operation, Coronado National Forest Pima County, Arizona (Sept. 2011) 

(DEIS). In the DEIS, the Forest Service identified the Barrel Alternative as the preferred 

alternative (see Figure I-1).
15

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Figure I-1: The Barrel Alternative Footprint (Proposed Action) 

(Note: This figure does not illustrate the proposed Sycamore Connector Road; see Figure I-2) 
16

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

The Barrel Alternative, which places all of the tailings and waste rock in upper Barrel Canyon 

and the lower portion of Wasp Canyon, was developed during the NEPA process to respond to 

the significant issues regarding potential impacts on biological resources, cultural resources, and 

the surface water component of water resources. The Forest Service interdisciplinary team 

biologist determined this alternative to have the least impact on plant and animal resources 

because it avoids the McCleary Canyon drainage; it is the most physically and biologically 

diverse of the nearby canyons, and harbors the rare plant Coleman’s coral-root (Hexalectris 

colemanii) (SWCA 2011). Prohibiting mine tailings or waste in McCleary Canyon permanently 

maintains its contribution of surface water flow to the Barrel Canyon drainage system. 

Stormwater flow through McCleary Canyon would be somewhat decreased during mine 

operations because runoff from the plant site would be retained. However, there are also 

increases to the drainage area that will be diverted through the McCleary Canyon channel, due to 

diversions from upstream of the pit and the plant site. 

The Barrel Alternative incorporates a waste rock perimeter buttress that completely surrounds 

the dry-stack tailings. Heap leaching facilities are not included in the current iterations of 

alternative. In order to maintain concurrent reclamation of final outer slopes, waste rock will 

initially be placed in berms along the outside edge of the waste rock and tailings area, followed 

by waste rock or tailings placement behind the berms. The tailings conveyor system will be 

modified to accommodate the relocated tailings facility. Surface water management facilities 

include diversions around the facility to convey storm events upgradient of the pit, operating 

facilities, and waste rock and tailings storage areas and to place the water back into drains or 

other control structures. Diversion and stormwater control facilities include the following: 

 Stormwater redesign, including removing the underdrains, eliminating storage on the top and 

benches of the tailings and waste rock facilities, and incorporating more stormwater routing 

downstream. The redesign reduced post-closure flow loss from 34 percent to 17 percent 

(compared to baseline conditions). 

 The Barrel Alternative permits no storage of stormwater on the top or benches of the waste 

rock/tailings landform post-closure. Instead, waste rock and tailings facilities will shed 

runoff after closure. The tops of the facilities will be graded to discharge stormwater to the 

lower benches, which in turn are designed to move stormwater laterally along the benches 

until it reaches several concrete or natural stone drop structures. The runoff from these drop 

structures will either be discharged into the natural washes (Barrel Canyon or a tributary) or 

discharged into a diversion channel that will carry runoff along the toe of the waste rock and 

tailings facilities and then discharge that runoff into the natural washes. In this manner, as 

much water as possible will be allowed to flow downstream after reclamation is complete. 

The flow-through drains beneath the tailings and waste rock facilities are not part of the Barrel 

Alternative because of concerns about intermingling of stormwater and tailings seepage and 

long-term maintenance. Post-closure, stormwater from the former plant site will instead be 

diverted to flow into McCleary Canyon via a surface channel. 
17

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

 Modifying the process water temporary storage pond and adding a double liner with a leak 

collection and removal system to the process water containment to improve the containment 

of process water and separate stormwater from process water. 

 Realigning the primary access road to avoid Scholefield Canyon, reduce its visibility, 

decrease stormwater runoff into the Barrel Canyon drainage system, and reduce impacts to 

riparian vegetation. 

Extraction of ore will be from an open-pit mine located primarily on Rosemont private land 

(approximately 590 acres of the 955 acre site). Processing, waste management, and other 

support facilities are proposed to be located on the Coronado National Forest; project 

infrastructure, such as utilities, will be located on Coronado National Forest ASLD lands and 

Rosemont lands. Access to the mine site will originate on SR 83 east of the pit and facilities. 

The complete mine life, as described in the Supplemental BA, is as follows: 

 Premining phase: 18 to 24 months. (Includes initial clearing vegetation, soil stockpiling, 

construction of facilities and roads, construction of electric and water lines, fence 

construction, decommissioning of forest roads, initial construction of pit, initial construction 

of the perimeter waste rock buttress, and construction of compliance wells). 

 Active mining phase: 20 to 25 years. (Includes additional vegetation removal, continued pit 

development, continued construction of the perimeter waste rock buttress, placement of 

tailings, concurrent reclamation activities). 

 Final reclamation and closure phase: 3 years. (Includes removal of plant site facilities, 

completion of reclamation, potential staining of pit walls, removal of perimeter fence, and 

removal of water and electrical lines on Coronado National Forest lands).

 Post-closure phase. Indeterminate amount of time. (Includes monitoring and maintenance). 

Project-related activities that will be conducted over the aforementioned timeframe include the 

following: 

 Construction and operation of an open-pit copper, molybdenum, and silver mine primarily on 

private land;

 Construction, operation, and reclamation of an ore processing plant, tailings, and waste rock 

facilities on National Forest System land adjacent to the pit; 

 Construction and operation of infrastructure, such as utilities and their corridors, on State, 

private and National Forest System lands; 

 Construction of a new access road, retention structures, wells, ore transportation systems, and 

reclamation test plots; 

 Use of existing roads, new road construction, and maintenance of both; 

 Labor requirements for construction, operation, processing, reclamation, and closure; 
18

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

 Implementation of conservation measures for minimization and mitigation to avoid or 

minimize impacts; 

 Reclamation, closure, and maintenance of the mine and related facilities; and 

 Resource monitoring during construction, operation, reclamation, closure, and post-closure. 

Calculation of Acres of Disturbance 

The proposed mine will be surrounded by a perimeter fence within which public access will not 

be allowed. The October 2011 DEIS and June 2012 BA both assumed that any lands within the 

perimeter fence would be disturbed; however, upon further review, not all of those lands will 

undergo surface disturbance. Within the perimeter fence, a separate security fence/road that will 

be erected roughly 750 feet from the toe of the waste rock/tailings facilities. Except where 

specific features such as the primary access road, utility corridor, groundwater monitoring wells 

and compliance point dam are located, the land between the perimeter fence and the security 

fence will not be disturbed. This more focused and refined calculation has resulted in a reduced 

acreage of disturbance as compared to earlier estimates. The June 2012 BA indicated that 7,016 

acres of land would be directly disturbed. Owing to the changes described above and in USFS 

(2013d), this acreage was refined to 5,421, which includes areas within the security fence (4,013 

acres), the primary access road (226 acres), the utility line corridor (889 acres), decommissioned 

or new forest roads (59 acres), and the rerouted Arizona National Scenic Trail and trailheads (19 

acres). 

The facilities and activities described in this section are typical of open-pit mine sites. The 

descriptions below, however, are specific to the components for the proposed action . The mine 

pit is where blasting and drilling activities would occur. The waste rock and tailings will be 

transported and processed within the corresponding facilities. Lighting and waste disposal will 

take place at the plant site and support facilities. A perimeter fence will be constructed, 

encompassing the main mining and processing operations and excluding portions of the access 

roads, and some Coronado National Forest lands will be unavailable for public use during the 25 

to 30-year mine life. A legal closure order will be issued by the Coronado National Forest, and 

notices will be posted along the fencing. Perimeter fencing will consist of a standard 4-strand 

barbed wire fence (with a smooth bottom wire, in accordance with BLM and AGFD fencing 

standards). Sections of the perimeter fence are expected to be removed following closure after 

considering grazing and safety needs. Portions of the site, including the mine pit, will likely 

remain fenced off and closed to the public indefinitely for safety reasons. 

Pit 

Preproduction stripping of overlying rock is expected to require 18 to 24 months to prepare for 

full-scale mining operations, train work crews, construct access and haul roads, and clear and 

grub the pit and waste rock storage areas that will be disturbed during the initial years of 

operation. Open-pit mining methods will be used to excavate ore to recover copper, 

molybdenum, and silver. The roughly circular open-pit mine will measure between 6,000 and 

6,500 feet in diameter at the end of mine life, with a final depth of up to 3,000 feet (3,050 feet 
19

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

above mean sea level). Pit slope angles between roads will be controlled by rock strength and 

will range between 33 and 50 degrees. The pit will disturb approximately 955 acres: 590 acres 

on private land and 365 acres on Coronado National Forest lands. 

Blasting and Drilling 

Blasting will be required prior to excavation of the ore and waste rock, and will generally be 

conducted daily. Explosives storage, transport, and use will adhere to all rules, regulations, and 

safety standards. Once a day on average, an ammonium nitrate and fuel oil explosive will be 

detonated in the mine pit. This will occur during daylight hours only, generally between 9 a.m. 

and 4 p.m. Dry bulk ammonium nitrate will be transported for use from storage silos at the 

adjacent plant site. Blasting detonators, such as caps, delays, cord, and boosters, will be stored in 

special magazines and transported to the pit in separate vehicles. If wet-hole blasting is 

necessary, an emulsion and/or slurry will be transported to the pit from onsite storage tanks. 

Mixed ammonium nitrate and fuel oil will be loaded and transported using trucks specifically 

designed for that purpose. 

Ore Processing 

Originally, Rosemont proposed two different types of ore processing methods: a conventional 

flotation method and a heap leach-solvent extraction-electrowinning method. Based on the 

proposed action selected by the Forest Service, which imposed engineering constraints that affect 

the operation of a heap leach pad, and comments on the DEIS, Rosemont Copper removed the 

heap leach-solution extraction circuit, and will process ore only by means of a conventional 

flotation method. 

Ore will be sent through a circuit of crushers, grinding mills, and ball mills to reduce the rock 

size to a fine sand consistency. A flotation circuit will concentrate the copper and molybdenum 

minerals from the rest of the ore material. The concentrates will then be dewatered, thickened, 

filtered, and loaded for shipment. Water from the filtering and thickening process will be 

returned to the process and recycled. 

Waste Rock and Tailings Placement 

Waste rock, which consists largely of chemically basic limestone and other largely non-acidgenerating rocks, will be placed in areas located outside the open pit. The tailing is the material 

remaining after the floatation process to recover the copper and molybdenum minerals are 

removed. These tailings are thickened and then further dewatered through filtering. The water 

from the dewatering process is returned to the mill for reuse. The tailings are transported via 

conveyor belt to the unlined dry-stack tailings disposal area, where the tailings will be deposited, 

stacked, and compacted as needed. Ultimately, the tailings will be placed behind a waste rock 

buttress and, ultimately, encapsulated, or covered completely by a layer of waste rock. 

Transportation of ore, waste rock, and tailings will occur only in the mine area, which will be 

closed to the public for safety reasons. Ore and waste rock will be moved in large, off-highway 
20

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

haul trucks. Roads for the haul trucks will be constructed both within the open pit and between 

the pit and the plant, tailings facility, and waste rock storage area. In accordance with Mine 

Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) regulations, haul roads will be approximately 125 

feet wide, including safety berms and drainage ditches, and no steeper than 10% to 12%. 

Maximum truck speed will be 35 miles per hour. Haul roads are temporary and regularly move 

based on the locations of material placement. 

Plant Site and Support Facilities 

Facilities necessary to support Rosemont’s mining and ore processing operations will be 

constructed during the premining phase, and removed during final reclamation and closure. 

These facilities include buildings and structures, such as administration buildings, change house, 

warehouse with laydown yards, analytical laboratory, light vehicle and process maintenance 

building, mine truck shop, mine truck wash and lube facility, powder magazines and ammonium 

nitrate storage, main guard shack with truck scale, and fuel and lubricant storage and dispensing 

facilities. The facilities are located generally in one centralized area near the open pit. 

Lighting 

The proposed action lies within an area of concern relative to the effects of light pollution 

(Monrad et al. 2012). Neither the existing 2006 Pima County Outdoor Lighting Code (PCOLC) 

nor the draft 2011 PCOLC have jurisdiction over the proposed action area; however, Rosemont 

will employ an advanced light pollution mitigation plan. The plan includes the use of state of the 

art lighting equipment and controls to minimize environmental impact to levels below the intent 

of the PCOLC, including other comparable modern light pollution control standards, while 

simultaneously complying with the proposed action’s operation safety requirements prescribed 

by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). 

The proposed action is expected to generate approximately 10% to 15% of the amount of 

environmental light over the entire site that, under the PCOLC, would normally be allowed by a 

similar commercial development of the same scale in the same location using conventional 

lighting systems on a similarly sized parcel (Monrad et al. 2012). The proposed action is 

expected to produce approximately 6.4 million lumens, which takes into account all lighting 

sources, including equipment-mounted lighting systems. 

Solid, Hazardous, and Sanitary Waste 

Solid waste will be recycled as appropriate and feasible. Non-recyclable inert waste will be 

disposed of at a state licensed on-site landfill located on Rosemont’s private property. The 

landfill will cover approximately 2 acres on Rosemont’s private property and will be permitted 

and regulated by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). The excavated 

depth of the landfill will range from 5 to 43 feet, with a minimum excavation elevation of 

approximately 5,190 feet above mean sea level; maximum height of the landfill at closure will be 

no more than 5,280 feet above mean sea level. All putrescent materials or other items that 

cannot be appropriately disposed of in the solid waste facility will be transported of off-site by a 
21

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

commercial vendor. Large (greater than 3 feet in diameter) equipment tires, such as those on the 

haul trucks, will be recycled if practicable, or otherwise disposed of on-site in specific tire burial 

cells located within the waste rock and tailings facility. The USFS has requested that the burial 

cells be situated on private lands. Hazardous waste will be handled and disposed of in 

accordance with applicable regulations, and no hazardous waste will be disposed of on-site. All 

hazardous waste will be transported by licensed haulers and disposed of at regulated facilities. 

Sanitary waste at the project site will be handled by septic systems, with leach fields located in 

the vicinity of each building. During the construction phase and where necessary during 

operations, portable toilets will be used in various locations throughout the plant and mine sites. 

Electrical Power Supply 

The total power requirement for the proposed action is 108 to 112 megawatts and will require a 

minimum transmission voltage of 138 kilovolts. Tucson Electric Power (TEP) has entered into 

an agreement with Rosemont to construct a transmission line to the mine site. All costs of the 

line will be borne by Rosemont. In addition to traditional electrical service from TEP, the 

proposed action will also generate energy on-site using solar technologies, such as solar 

technologies to partially power the administration buildings and potentially other areas. 

On June 12, 2012, the Arizona Corporation Commission approved the Certificate of 

Environmental Compatibility authorizing the construction of an aboveground 138-kilovolt 

electrical transmission line and associated facilities from the proposed Toro Switchyard to the 

Rosemont Substation (Figure 2 in the October 2012 Supplemental BA and figure I-1 in this 

document). Following a hearing, the Certificate of Environmental Compatibility was issued by 

the Arizona Power Plant and Line Siting Committee, approving the preferred route. Thereafter 

the Arizona Corporation Commission approved the Certificate of Environmental Compatibility 

with certain modifications that included the issuance of the Record of Decision. The water 

supply (see Water Supply section) and secondary access road (see Utility Maintenance Road 

section) are co-located with the lines. The route generally parallels the existing South Santa Rita 

Road before entering private property held by Rosemont and crosses the ridgeline at Lopez Pass. 

The alignment then enters Coronado National Forest lands before entering the mine facility area. 

Water Supply 

During construction of the water supply pipeline, water would be drawn from existing wells in 

and around the project site in order to supply construction activities. It is estimated that 

approximately 600 to 900 gallons per minute would be necessary to support facility construction.

The project is permitted by the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) to draw up to 

6,000 acre-feet per annum (afa). However, it is currently estimated that the project would use 

between 4,700 and 5,400 afa of fresh water, for a total use over the mine life of approximately 

100,000 acre-feet. Water would be pumped from four to six wells located on land owned or 

leased by Rosemont Copper near the community of Sahuarita in the Santa Cruz Valley at a 

maximum rate of 5,000 gallons per minute (total pumpage). The well locations, proposed 

pipeline route, and pipeline route are shown in Figures PPC-1 and PPC-2. Four booster stations 

would be needed to maintain waterflow in the line.
22

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Total fresh water to be used during operation is estimated to be about 4.8 million gallons per day. 

Most of this would be supplied by groundwater wells in the Santa Cruz Valley. Much smaller 

quantities would be obtained from stormwater and pit dewatering on the mine site. Water would 

primarily be allocated to ore processing. Other water uses would include dust control, fire 

protection, drinking water, sanitary waste management, and other miscellaneous uses. It is 

estimated that up to 18,500 acre-feet could be obtained from pit dewatering over the life of the 

mine. Water acquired through pit dewatering would either be used in processing or dust control. 

Because the quality of the water supply is expected to approach potable standards, it would not 

require any additional processing to be used in various mining processes.

Where feasible, an estimated 37 million gallons of water per day would be reclaimed from a 

variety of uses on the mine and returned for use in processing. Water used to process ore 

(referred to as process water) and other water impacted by the project would be controlled as 

described below.

Water Supply Pipeline 

A 20-inch carbon steel water pipeline would be constructed. While it is expected that most 

drainage crossings would only require backfill of the previously removed material, some 

crossings may require non-erosive material, such as concrete, below calculated scour depth 

where wash composition is soil and gravel. Where rock prohibits burial, the pipeline would be 

placed above the rock and covered with soil, as previously specified, depending on slope, 

topography, and the availability of cover material.

The pipe bedding requirements would follow the manufacturer’s recommendations. Isolation 

valves would be installed in the pipeline at intervals of approximately 3,000 feet and at elevation 

changes of 250 feet. Construction of the pipeline would include up to four booster stations that 

would consist of a concrete sump, four vertical turbine pumps, and a pneumatic tank housed 

within secured buildings or structures and requiring power, as described above. The reservoirs 

and pump stations would be built outside jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.

Water Control 

The primary water control objective is to reduce the risk of discharging potentially contaminated 

water into the environment. Three major areas of water contamination control are as follows: 

process water, groundwater, and stormwater that comes into contact with process facilities or 

tailings. Control of process water consists of containing the process water in engineered 

structures, such as tanks, pipes, sumps, lined ponds, and lined ditches, and maintaining the water 

content of the dry-stack tailings at a level that reduces seepage from the dry-stack tailings 

facility. The engineering design and performance of the various process water control facilities, 

including seepage and leakage monitoring and recovery, will meet or exceed the best available 

demonstrated control technology criteria used by the ADEQ and will be regulated under their 

permits issued pursuant to the State Aquifer Protection Permit issues for the project. 
23

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Groundwater control includes those activities and facilities intended to protect and monitor the 

quality of the groundwater in the area, as well as the investigation and modeling used to predict 

the response of the groundwater systems to both the withdrawal of groundwater and the 

influence of seepage and leakage from project facilities. Implementation of groundwater control 

requirements will be monitored as part of the aquifer protection permit that has been issued by 

the ADEQ. This includes monitoring of the seepage and leakage detection systems required to 

be designed into processing facilities by the aquifer protection permit. 

Of particular importance to the long-term groundwater protection is the acid rock drainage 

protection and monitoring program. Monitoring to ensure that off-site groundwater quality is not 

impacted beyond the level allowed by the aquifer protection permit is accomplished through the 

installation and scheduled sampling and testing of specific groundwater monitoring wells as 

required by the aquifer protection permit and by applying best available demonstrated control 

technology (i.e., engineering controls and practices). Protection of groundwater quality 

following mine closure is achieved by the following: the closure and reclamation of the process 

facilities: elimination or reduction of acid rock drainage generation in the tailings and waste rock 

from the design and operation of the facilities; monitoring and testing required by the aquifer 

protection permit following mine closure; and capture of possible impacted mine site 

groundwater by localized groundwater flowing into the pit. 

Stormwater management involves three basic ideas: (1) process water or stormwater that comes 

into contact with process areas cannot be discharged; (2) water that runs off of waste rock and 

tailings where process water is not present can be discharged downstream; and (3) water that is 

diverted around the process is merely runoff and not regulated. For the purposes of this 

document the water referred to in number one above is considered process or “contact” water 

while all other water is considered stormwater. 

The general design concept for managing stormwater from the dry-stack tailings facility is to 

minimize infiltration of water in the tailings and prevent the discharge of stormwater that comes 

into contact with the tailings. The top surface of the dry-stack tailings will be exposed to 

precipitation only during operations. All tailings will be covered with waste rock at closure. 

Constructing uniform lifts of dry tailings that are buttressed by waste rock ensure containment 

and erosion control. The top of the tailings facility will be relatively impervious. That is, during 

operations, all precipitation will remain on top of the tailings facility to evaporate. If water 

ponds on top of the tailings facility, it will be pumped to the process water temporary storage 

pond to limit infiltration into the tailings facility. Diversion channels will be constructed to 

direct surface runoff from the outer waste rock shell slopes into either sediment ponds or 

adjacent drainages to a sediment control structure.

Stormwater from above the mine pit will be diverted around the pit and plant site. During 

operations, stormwater that falls within the mine pit and associated disturbed areas, and all 

stormwater that comes into contact with ore, will be contained onsite and used for mining and 

mineral processing purposes. Post-closure, any stormwater that enters the pit will contribute to 

the pit lake. The small ridge just east of the plant site will be eliminated post-closure in order to 

enable stormwater from the reclaimed plant site area to flow downstream into McCleary Canyon. 

Precipitation that comes into contact with waste rock does not need to be retained, but can be 
24

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

released downstream. Regardless of this, much of the runoff from the waste rock facilities will 

be retained during operations, with the exception of the perimeter waste rock buttresses. For 

perimeter buttresses, concurrent reclamation and appropriate best management practices will

progress up the outer slopes as the buttresses are constructed. This will limit erosion potential 

and allow stormwater runoff to discharge to down-gradient sediment ponds and eventually to the 

watershed. 

Stormwater management at the waste rock facilities is similar to that for the dry-stack tailings 

facility. For the construction of the initial perimeter buttresses, concurrent reclamation and 

appropriate best management practices will progress up the outer slopes as the buttresses are 

constructed. This will limit erosion potential, while minor diversion channels will be used to 

direct non-contact runoff to downgradient sediment ponds. The sediment ponds at the toe of the 

outer slopes will be designed to store and release up to the 10-year, 24-hour storm event so that 

suspended sediment concentrations of discharged water are no greater than background 

conditions. 

Stormwater from the waste rock and tailings facilities, including the waste rock buttresses that 

are not reclaimed or stabilized, will be routed to sediment control structures, where any overflow 

discharging off-site will be monitored for constituent and sediment content in accordance with 

ADEQ’s Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Multi-Sector General Industrial 

Stormwater Permit.

General stormwater management structures are designed using a precipitation-runoff simulation 

computer program developed by the USACE. Two calculations have been evaluated (the peak 

flow and the runoff volumes) for Rosemont’s selection of the most practical and protective 

methodology and criteria for use (Tetra Tech 2010a, 2010b). 

Active stormwater management will continue after the mine closes, as required by the mining

stormwater general permit and the erosion control provisions of the mine land reclamation plan, 

administered by the Arizona State Mine Inspector. The Arizona State Mine Inspector has

jurisdiction for reclamation under Title 27 Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS Chapter 5; this is the 

Reclamation Act statute for reclamation of hardrock mining, which pertains to private lands with 

more than 5 acres of mining disturbance. In general, reclamation and closure is designed to shed 

all stormwater from the waste rock facility, the tailings facility (which will have been capped 

with waste rock), stormwater that is diverted around the northeast side of the pit, and the plant 

site. Post-closure precipitation falling in the pit itself and stormwater diverted around the 

northwest side of the pit will not discharge downstream.

Compliance Point Dam 

A compliance point dam will serve as the final compliance point where stormwater can be 

monitored. Each of the two dams included in the Barrel alternative will be approximately 6 feet 

tall and approximately 100 to 200 feet wide, with a storage capacity of approximately 2 acrefeet. They will be constructed in year 0, prior to the commencement of mining, using inert waste 

rock, and be classified as an Arizona Department of Water Resources nonjurisdictional, unlined 

embankment. Normally, the area upstream of and behind the embankment will be empty. 

During storm events, water will be temporarily impounded and slowly released through the 
25

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

porous rock-fill dam. Large storm events will overtop the dam and proceed downstream. The 

compliance point dam will be removed after closure of the proposed action facilities or if the 

facilities reach final stabilization through concurrent reclamation and sediment runoff is within 

acceptable limits. 

Primary Access Road 

A new 2-lane paved road, referred to as the “primary access road,” will be constructed to provide 

access between SR 83 and the mine (see Figure 1 in the BA and Figure I-1 in this document). 

The primary access road will leave SR 83 along a straight section of the highway. At the 

intersection, SR 83 will be widened and provided with additional lanes. Public use will be 

restricted on portions of the primary access road during construction and operation of the mine 

because of safety considerations, but will be reopened to the public after closure. Segments of 

the primary access road will be added to the national forest system road inventory. 

Utility Maintenance Road 

Referred to as the “secondary access road” in the DEIS, a better understanding of this road and 

its function resulted in its being renamed the “utility maintenance road.” This road would be 

located within the utility corridor to serve as access to the power supply line, water supply line, 

and water booster pump stations. The road would consist of two discrete segments: one from the 

plant site, over Lopez Pass, to a major wash on private land; and another from the supply well 

area near Sahuarita to the other side of the major wash, generally following the electrical 

transmission and water line location. Overall, this road would require more than 11.5 miles of 

new construction and 4.5 miles of reconstruction or upgrade to an existing road. 

A gravel road would be constructed from the plant site to Lopez Pass to serve as a maintenance 

road for the utility supply lines. The existing road over Lopez Pass [National Forest System 

Road (NFSR) 505] is on National Forest System (NFS) land and private land. While NFSR 505 

is considered a Forest Service system road, the Forest Service does not have legal access across 

private land. There are small portions of the new road construction that overlap existing NFSR 

505, and those would be reconstructed as part of the utility maintenance road. However, most of 

the alignment would require new construction from the plant site to its western terminus. The 

rocky, hilly portion of the road would be reconstructed, and a new road would be created that 

would run west across private land. The road would intercept a major wash at its western 

terminus. There are no plans to construct a crossing of this wash, which would require an 

engineered structure. The second segment of the utility maintenance road would begin at the 

area of mine water supply wells near Sahuarita and follow the location of the electrical 

transmission and water lines. This road segment would cross land administered by the Arizona 

State Land Department (ASLD) and private lands and would generally parallel Country Club and 

Santa Rita Roads.

Where the water pipeline to the mine travels under Santa Rita Road, the utility maintenance road 

intersects the public roadway. It would be gated here to prevent unauthorized access. Because 

there are different mine water supply well locations, the utility maintenance road would include 
26

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

spurs that extend to these locations as required. See Figure 5 in this chapter. The waterline 

segment to the northern most well will not require a new road and will use the existing adjacent 

Santa Rita Road for construction and maintenance until it intersects with Country Club Road.

A right-of-way (ROW) permit from ASLD is required for the sections of the utility maintenance 

road and utility corridor on State land. A ROW application has been filed; the ROW permit itself 

will not be issued until approval of the project by the Forest Service. The sections of the road 

within the ASLD ROW would be new construction. ASLD will also decide at a later date 

whether they intend to require an additional fence between the Utility Maintenance Road and the 

rest of the Santa Rita Experimental Range. The Town of Sahuarita also signed an agreement 

with Rosemont allowing use of a portion of its current ROW alongside Santa Rita Road (Town 

of Sahuarita and Rosemont Copper Company 2013). This license agreement provides access to 

the northern most well via Santa Rita Road. Use of Santa Rita Road for construction, 

maintenance or crossing of the waterline, may require additional permitting by Pima County.

The utility maintenance road would be required to meet MSHA standards by including truck 

axle-high berms (anticipated to be about 3 feet high) on the sides of the section of roadway 

located on Rosemont Copper private lands. Some road reconstruction would be on NFS lands 

before the road intersects private lands, and the Coronado would negotiate with Mine Safety and 

Health Administration (MSHA) to accommodate safety while minimizing impacts to NFS 

surface resources. Otherwise, the segments on ASLD and would be a standard 14-foot-wide 

native surface road without any additional MSHA requirements.

The utility maintenance road would be closed to the public during construction and operation of 

the mine, and portions may be reopened to the public after closure, depending on safety 

concerns. It is the intent of the Coronado to restore public access over Lopez Pass. However, a 

section of this road crosses private land, and there is currently no legal right of public access. 

While the Coronado would work with the landowner to secure a permanent public easement for 

this segment of road, it is unknown at this time whether legal public access would be available 

postclosure. The portions of this road on private lands would remain after the pipeline and 

booster stations are removed. For sections on State land, ASLD would ultimately decide which 

portions would be retained, removed, or revegetated through their ROW permitting process.

Sycamore Connector Road

The Sycamore Connector Road is a new road that was identified by the Coronado National 

Forest. The perimeter fence will cut off legal public access to National Forest System Roads 

(NFSR) in the Sycamore Canyon area, north of the project area. The Sycamore Connector road 

would be a new road that would be constructed from a point on the primary access road outside 

the perimeter fence, to connect with NFSR 4050-0.36R-1 (which intersects NFSR 4050 about 0.3 

mile farther west). For the Barrel alternative, the Sycamore Connector road is about 12,184 feet 

long (2.3 miles) and impacts about 26 acres. 

The NFSRs in Sycamore Canyon currently connect to public roads out the bottom (north) end of 

the canyon. However, the roads cross numerous private ownerships, and a public easement for 

the road does not exist. Public access from this direction into Sycamore Canyon is thereby 

controlled by these private landowners. While public access is sometimes granted, it cannot be 
27

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

guaranteed. Constructing the Sycamore Connector Road as a NFSR will continue to provide 

legal public access to the roads that currently exist on Coronado National Forest lands in this 

area. 

Refer to Figures I-1, I-2, J-2, and J-7 for depictions of the Sycamore Canyon Connector road, as 

well as other roads being constructed and decommissioned as part of the Barrel alternative. 

Other Area Roads – Including Decommissioned and New Forest Road Segments 

Those NFSRs that are open to the public or have restricted public access and that enter the 

perimeter fence will either be decommissioned, rerouted to connect to another area road, or have 

a built-in turnaround area near the fenceline. The June 2012 BA did not explicitly recognize that 

changes will occur to the NFSRs that intersect the perimeter fence. The location of the roads to 

be decommissioned and segments to be constructed is shown in Figure I-2 below and Appendix 

1, Figure 18 of the Supplemental BA. This and other new road segments designed to connect 

remnant NFSRs are shown in Figure I-2 below and Figure 18 in what will become chapter 2 of 

the FEIS (USFS 2013b). This includes the construction of a new road from the primary access 

road to NFSR 4050-0.36R-1 (which intersects NFSR 4050 about 0.3 mile farther west), in order 

to continue to provide public legal access to the Sycamore Canyon area. Because OpenAuthorized-Restricted roads are typically used in the project area for access to adjoining grazing 

allotments, these will mostly remain intact to allow administrative and permitted use postclosure. 

During operations, Rosemont Copper will be responsible for providing access, in some form, to 

the grazing lease holders for management of their allotments and to the Forest Service for permit 

administration. 
28

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Figure I-2: Location of the roads to be decommissioned and segments to be constructed.
29

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Transportation on State Route 83 

Mine-related traffic on SR 83 during operations will primarily consist of trucks carrying supplies 

to the proposed action , trucks carrying concentrate from the proposed action , and employee 

traffic. Mine-related traffic on SR 83 during operations would primarily consist of trucks 

carrying supplies to the project area, trucks carrying concentrate from the project area, and 

employee traffic. Copper and molybdenum concentrate shipments would form the largest 

number of routine truck shipments, with approximately 50 round trips per day and 350 trips per 

week. The largest concentrated volume of mine traffic during a 24-hour period will occur during 

workforce shift change which will vary between 6 a.m. to 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. In 

addition, there will be equipment, construction material, and mining material deliveries to the 

project area. Major equipment arriving by rail will likely be received at the Port of Tucson, 

which is located near Vail, Arizona. Traffic during the pre-mining phase will use SR 83 and 

existing Forest Road 231 to access the project area until the new primary access road is 

constructed. This may require an upgrade to Forest Road 231 within the existing easement, in 

addition to an upgrade of the entrance to SR 83. Table 1 in the October 2012 Supplemental BA 

identified mine-related truck traffic and stated that there would be 470 trips per week and 69 per 

day; however these figures have been revised and the updated number of trips is 455 trips per 

week (55 on weekends, 69 on weekdays). This does not include other forms of vehicular access, 

such as by mine staff entering and leaving the site. 

Although there have been no studies or indication of increased traffic on Box Canyon Road 

(Forest Road 62), it is possible that the road might receive increased traffic as an alternate around 

SR 83 to avoid slow mining traffic (i.e., a bypass from Tucson to Sonoita). This could be 

important because the road crosses the north-south spine of the Santa Rita Mountains, an area 

that might be important for resident or migrating animals (e.g., golden eagle, jaguar, Chiricahua 

leopard frog). 

Arizona National Scenic Trail Location 

The June 2012 BA did not explicitly recognize that approximately 10 miles of the Arizona 

National Scenic Trail would need to be rerouted, resulting in some additional surface 

disturbance, including several trailheads. The additional acreage of disturbance from the 

rerouting of the Arizona National Scenic Trail is included in the revised calculation of 

disturbance. The location of the rerouted trail is shown in Appendix 1, Figure 15 of the October 

2012 Supplemental BA. 

Reclamation and Closure/Concurrent Reclamation 

Reclamation of the proposed action will be administered and regulated by the Coronado National 

Forest [36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 228] on Coronado National Forest lands; and 

administered and regulated for the State of Arizona by the Arizona State Mine Inspector 

(Arizona Revised Statutes 27-901 through 27-1026; and Arizona Administrative Code 11-2-101 

through 11-2-822), and the ADEQ (Arizona Revised Statutes 49-241 through 49-252; and 

Arizona Administrative Code 18-9-101 through 403). 
30

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

The June 2012 BA did not include details of reclamation and closure activities specific to the 

Barrel alternative. A July 2012 Preliminary Reclamation and Closure Plan for the Preferred 

Alternative (CDM Smith 2012) was incorporated into the Supplemental BA. Appendix 2 of the 

Supplemental BA includes detailed descriptions of the reclamation activities, including locations 

and handling of stockpiled salvaged soils, detailed phasing of concurrent reclamation, and 

revegetation/reclamation procedures and techniques. Table I-1, below, shows a summary of 

concurrent reclamation phasing from the preliminary plan. 

 

Table I-1: (Table 2 from Supplemental BA): Phasing of Concurrent Reclamation

Project Phase Total Acres Undergoing Reclamation Total Acres Reclaimed

End of year 1 of active mining 114 0

End of year 2 of active mining 169 114

End of year 3 of active mining 259 283

End of year 4 of active mining 75 542

End of year 5 of active mining 93 617

End of year 10 of active mining 390 710

End of year 15 of active mining 383 1,100

End of year 22 of active mining 1,764 1,483

Postclosure 0 3,589

Almost half of the reclamation to be done at Rosemont will have been completed by the end of 

year 15 of active mining (1,500 of 3,600 acres). 

Soil Salvage Plans 

Detailed plans for soil salvage have been identified for the proposed action (CDM Smith 2012 

Soil Salvage Management Plan) as part of the preliminary reclamation and closure planning 

effort. 

 Soil salvaging in specific areas will not take place until it is necessary to disturb those 

areas for mine activities. 

 At soil salvage locations, pits will be dug to verify removal depth of salvage soils. 

 Erosion and sediment controls will be installed, both upslope and downslope of soil 

removal areas. These controls are required under the stormwater pollution prevention 

plan that will be mandatory under the mine’s Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System Multi-sector General Permit for stormwater. Dust controls will also be 

implemented. 

 Soil will be transported using haul trucks or other equipment to a stockpile location or 

directly to the waste rock/tailings facilities. If possible, transportation will be direct 

rather than incorporating long-term stockpiles. Stockpiles will be located in four 

different areas over the life of the mine. 
31

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

 Stockpile 1 is located immediately east of the phase 2 dry-stack tailings facility, with a 

footprint of approximately 18 acres and a capacity of 501,000 cubic yards. This stockpile 

will be used generally through the first 8 years of operation. 

 Stockpile 2 is located south of stockpile 1 and will be used for years 8 through 14 of 

operations. Stockpile 2 has a footprint of approximately 39 acres and a capacity of 

502,000 cubic yards. 

 Stockpile 3 is located on the top of the waste rock storage area and will be used for years 

14 through 22 of operations. Stockpile 3 has a footprint of 22 acres and a capacity of 

335,000 cubic yards. 

 Stockpile 4 is also located on the top of the waste rock storage area and will be used for 

years 14 through 22 of operations and during closure. Stockpile 4 has a footprint of 18 

acres and a capacity of 283,000 cubic yards. 

 Soil stockpiles will be managed to reduce potential erosion, designed to reduce potential 

for compaction to maintain air circulation and drainage, and if anticipated to be in 

existence for at least 1 year, will have vegetative cover using a broadcast seed mix and 

possibly stabilizers like straw mulch with tackifier 

Revegetation and Expected Revegetation Success 

Concurrent reclamation will take place over the life of the project, with initial reclamation 

beginning on the lowest levels of the waste rock buttresses when tailings are placed behind the 

buttress. The proposed acreage of reclamation activities over time is shown above, and in 

Appendix 2 of the October 2012 Supplemental BA and Table I-2, below. 

Revegetation would only be considered complete when certain reclamation criteria have been 

met. It is the responsibility of the Coronado National Forest to determine these success criteria 

and the responsibility of Rosemont Copper to develop methodologies and techniques, including 

adaptive management that can meet the revegetation criteria. The final reclamation and closure 

plan would provide further detail on the techniques to be employed, as well as monitoring and 

success criteria required for approval by the Coronado National Forest. The long-term purpose 

of undertaking revegetation is to create a self-sustainable ecosystem that would promote site 

stability and repair hydrologic function. 

Revegetation procedures will differ, depending on whether upland or riparian areas are being 

revegetated. Most of the landform, which consists of the waste rock and tailings facilities, will 

be covered with growth medium and revegetated with upland vegetation, as will the upper pit 

benches and the plant site. However, there may be limited areas along drainages where riparian 

revegetation would be appropriate. Upland revegetation will generally follow these steps: 

regrading, placement of salvage soils, ripping, transplantation of trees and shrubs, seed 

application, mulch and tackifier and maintenance/monitoring activities. 
32

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Areas will be regraded to obtain stable, permanent slope condition as designated in the final 

reclamation plans. Where possible, such as at the plant site, grading is intended to restore more 

natural slopes and minimize erosion. The potential for restoring natural slopes is limited with 

respect to the waste rock and tailings facility, but such shaping will be incorporated to the extent 

practicable, primarily on top of the facilities. 

Soils will be salvaged onsite, as previously described, and will be used as surface cover for 

revegetation. Almost all slopes will receive either a cover of soil or a mixture of soil and rock 

cover. In the most recent reclamation closure plan developed for the Barrel Alternative, several 

steep slopes on the side of the landform adjacent to the pit will remain solely rock with no soil 

cover. Specific surface treatment locations for the waste rock and tailings facilities will be 

shown in the Soils and Revegetation section in Chapter 3 of the FEIS, which is in preparation 

(USFS 2013a). For shorter slope runs between benches (less than 300 feet), the surface 

treatment is likely to be primarily soil cover. For longer slope runs between benches (over 300 

feet), the soil cover could be limited to the upper 300 feet of the slope to prevent erosion. The 

lower 300 feet may consist of rock or a combination of soil/rock. Other configurations may also 

be considered, such as the use of soil islands; these are small areas (probably less than 10 acres) 

in which soil of greater depth is placed to improve species’ diversity and benefit planted trees 

and shrubs. Where present, the total depth of soil cover will vary, but is estimated to be 

approximately 12 inches. Mulched vegetation material available from site clearance could be 

used as a soil additive if appropriate. 

After placement of salvage soil, the soil surface will be ripped or otherwise mechanically 

manipulated in order to create an optimal seedbed. Ripping and furrowing generally will follow 

contours to minimize erosion. The seed mix and application techniques could vary, depending 

on slope, aspect, elevation, and underlying growth media. The seed mix may also incorporate 

native plant species that are culturally important to tribes. 

The native seed mix will be agreed upon and approved by the Coronado National Forest and will 

be informed by the greenhouse studies, test-plot data, reference sites and results from previously 

revegetated areas. 

Appropriate site preparation may include lightly dragging the area after seed application, soil 

amendments, and/or application of certified weed-free straw mulch with a tackifier. Slow release 

fertilizer may be incorporated to promote plant growth.

Desired Condition 

The Coronado National Forest has determined the general desired vegetation condition for the 

reclaimed waste rock and tailings facilities over time. The desired vegetation condition 

represents what can reasonably be expected on disturbed, reclaimed growth medium that would 

exhibit more xeric soil moisture conditions than those found on natural areas. Desired conditions 

are included in the FEIS as a somewhat general, qualitative description of what the reclaimed 

sites will support following revegetation, at different time periods. The desired conditions have 
33

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

been developed through a review of the Natural Resources Conservation Service Ecological Site 

Descriptions, test plot data, and expertise of Coronado National Forest staff and others. 

It should be noted that the desired condition is not the same as reclamation success criteria, 

which are more site specific and quantitative, and will be fully described in the revegetation plan 

currently being developed and to be approved with the final MPO. Most importantly, success 

criteria would be informed by data collection on the final reference sites once they are selected 

by the USFS. This process is underway, and these data will be available for incorporation into 

the revegatation plan in the final MPO. This plan will use the process described in the Adaptive 

Management Technical Guide developed by the U.S. Department of the Interior (Williams et al. 

2009), and further detail is shown in the “Revegetation Success Criteria” part of this resource 

section. Desired vegetation condition varies across the site, influenced primarily by aspect and 

soil texture and chemistry. There are six revegetation site types that are considered for the 

reclaimed waste rock and tailings facilities, as summarized in Table I-2 below. The spatial 

distribution over time of these areas across the site is summarized in the Soils and Revegetation 

section of the EIS. 

Table I-2: Desired vegetation condition over time

Revegetation Site Type Vegetation 

Type

Number of 

Species

Percent 

Canopy 

Cover – 5 

Years after 

Planting

Percent 

Canopy 

Cover – 10 

Years after 

Planting

Percent 

Canopy 

Cover – 15 

Years after 

Planting

Percent 

Canopy 

Cover – 20 

Years after 

Planting

East-facing slopes Grasses 5 to 10 10 to 30 10 to 30 10 to 30 10 to 30

Shrubs 3 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 15 1 to 15

West-facing slopes Grasses 5 to 10 10 to 20 10 to 30 10 to 30 10 to 30

Shrubs 3 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 15 1 to 15

Slopes with increased rock 

cover

Grasses 3 to 7 5 to 20 10 to 20 10 to 20 10 to 20

Shrubs 1 to 3 0 to 5 1 to 5 3 to 5 3 to 5

South-facing slopes Grasses 5 to 10 5 to 15 10 to 20 10 to 20 10 to 30

Shrubs 1 to 3 1 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 5

Succulents 1 to 3 1 to 3 1 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 5

North-facing slopes Grasses 5 to 10 10 to 30 10 to 30 15 to 45 15 to 45

Shrubs 3 to 7 (<10 

years after 

planting)

3 to 10 (>10 

years after 

planting)

3 to 10 3 to 10 5 to 10 5 to 15

Trees 1 to 2 0 to 3 1 to 5 1 to 5 2 to 5

Level areas Grasses 5 to 10 10 to 30 10 to 30 15 to 40 15 to 40

Shrubs 3 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 10 1 to 10 1 to 10

Trees 1 to 2 0 to 3 0 to 3 1 to 3 1 to 3
34

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

As shown in Table I-2, while grasses and shrubs would occur across all revegetation site types, 

trees are likely only to consistently occur on north-facing slopes and level areas, and succulents 

are most likely to consistently occur on southern exposures. Note that succulents do not offer 

significant cover, so although the cover would not change over time, the density of these plants 

still would increase. Each revegetation site type is described below. Slope aspect influences soil 

moisture, with the greatest amount of soil moisture being retained on the north slopes and the 

least on south-facing slopes. More soil moisture is also retained on flat areas, compared with 

angled slopes such as on the sides of the waste rock and tailings facilities. Elevation also 

influences plant communities. The waste rock and tailings facilities fall roughly from 4,600 to 

5,500 feet above mean sea level, with some areas extending as high as 5,700 feet above mean sea 

level. 

East-facing slopes - Vegetation would be composed primarily of warm season perennial grasses, 

some forbs, and small shrubs. Small shrubs or sub-shrubs may be present but would not be 

clearly visible from a distance. Trees may be present but would be very widely distributed and 

would make up a small amount of the plant community. Long slope runs may require additional 

rock cover for soil stabilization. 

West-facing slopes - Vegetation would be composed primarily of warm season perennial 

grasses, some forbs, and small shrubs. Small shrubs or sub-shrubs may be present but would not 

be clearly visible from a distance. Trees may be present, but would be very widely distributed 

and would make up a small amount of the plant community. West-facing aspects would look 

similar to east-facing aspects but may be composed of different species within the same 

functional groups. 

Slopes with increased rock cover - Vegetation would be composed primarily of warm season 

perennial grasses, mixed forbs, and a minor component of small shrubs, compared with east- and 

west-facing slopes. Because of the steepness of these slopes, increased rock cover would be 

placed over the soil cap for erosion protection and increased stability. Species that favor rocky 

soils would be used. These areas are expected to be stable, even with relatively low amounts of 

vegetation cover; they would primarily be on the western side of the facilities and would not be 

visible from SR 83. 

South-facing slopes - Vegetation would be composed primarily of warm season perennial 

grasses, some forbs, and small shrubs. Small shrubs or sub-shrubs may be present but would not 

be clearly visible from a distance. Trees may be present but would be very widely distributed 

and would make up a small amount of the plant community. Palmer’s agaves (Agave palmeri) 

would be transplanted in clumps to mimic how they appear on undisturbed sites. Other 

culturally significant plans, such as sotol (Dasylrion wheeleri) and beargrass (Nolina 

microcarpa), may also be planted in clumped distribution on these portions of the facility. The 

greater amount of surface rock and less grass cover in these areas would be clearly visible. 

North-facing slopes - Vegetation would be composed of warm season perennial grasses and 

forbs, mixed with shrubs and dispersed trees. A higher density of shrubs and trees would 

establish on these slopes, compared with savannas or level-ground grasslands. It would take a 

number of years for shrubs and trees to grow large enough to be visible from a distance. Some 

species of trees may be deciduous, losing their leaves during the winter. 
35

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Level areas - Vegetation would be composed primarily of warm season perennial grasses, mixed 

forbs, an increased amount of small shrubs, compared with east- and west-facing slopes, and 

widely dispersed trees. Shrubs and trees would give a savanna-like appearance and would be 

visible from a distance once the plant community matures, which would take a number of years. 

Plant species - A variety of plant species would be incorporated into the seed mixes used for 

revegetation, informed in part by greenhouse and test plot studies conducted by Rosemont 

Copper, reference area vegetation, and the success of previously revegetated areas on the mine 

site, and the need to plant species of cultural importance. This seed mix would be expected to 

adaptively change over time based on the success of different species. In addition, other species 

not specifically seeded would be expected to opportunistically grow, including those that might 

be in the natural seed bed in the salvaged soil. It is important to note that the seed/planting mix 

and desired conditions do not account for mesquite, acacia, mimosa, or one-seed juniper. It is 

expected that these species would readily colonize the reclaimed sites and therefore would not be 

seeded. They are not included in desired condition estimates of species richness or canopy 

cover. Their presence would contribute additional species richness and cover beyond what is 

described here. The strategy for salvaging and using soil is intended to preserve the biological 

component within the soil to the extent practicable during the mining operation to promote the 

natural reestablishment of plant species native to the area. This strategy includes selectively 

stripping the upper soil layers and either directly placing that material on the reclaimed landform 

or storing that material in shallow stockpiles for as short a time as possible. This approach would 

be developed more fully in the final MPO. 

The species currently proposed for the seed mix are summarized in Table I-3, below, along with 

a list of additional species that are being considered for seeding/planting. 

Table I-3: Species expected to be present

Grasses Forbs Shrubs/Succulents Trees

Planned Seed Mix

Scientific 

Name

Common 

Name

Scientific 

Name

Common 

Name Scientific Name Common Name

Scientific 

Name

Common 

Name

Bouteloua 

curtipendula

Sideoats 

grama

Baileya 

multiradiata

Desert 

marigold

Agave palmeri Palmer’s 

agave

Juniperus 

deppeana

Alligator 

juniper

Eragrostis 

intermedia 

Plains 

lovegrass

Eschscholzia

minutiflora

Mexican 

gold poppy

Atriplex canescens Four-wing 

saltbush

Quercus 

arizonica

White oak

Bouteloua 

gracilis

Blue grama Calliandra

eriophylla

Fairy duster Quercus 

emoryi

Emory oak

Elymus sp. Bottlebrush 

squirreltail

Celtis pallida Desert 

hackberry

Quercus 

oblongifolia

Mexican 

blue oak

Digitaria 

californica

Arizona 

cottontop

Cercocarpus sp. Mountain 

mahogany

Hilaria

belangeri

CurlymesquiteDasylirion 

wheeleri

Desert 

spoon or 

sotol

Leptochloa

dubia

Green 

sprangletop

Fouquieria 

splendens 

Ocotillo
36

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Grasses Forbs Shrubs/Succulents Trees

Garrya wrightii Wright’s 

silktassel

Nolina 

microcarpa

Beargrass

Rhus trilobata Skunkbush 

sumac

Rhus virens Evergreen 

sumac

Yucca elata Soaptree 

yucca

Yucca schottii Schott’s 

yucca

Potential Additions

Bothriochloa 

barbinodis 

Cane 

beardgrass

Dalea sp. Dalea

Bouteloua 

hirsuta

Hairy 

grama

Eriogonum spp. Buckwheat

Bouteloua

chondrosioides

Sprucetop 

grama

Krameria sp. Range 

ratany

Bouteloua

repens

Slender 

grama

Krascheninnikovia 

sp.

Winterfat 

(on 

calcareous 

soils)

Heteropogon

contortus

Tanglehead Menodora sp. Menodora 

(on 

calcareous 

soils)

Lycurus sp. Wolfstail Parthenium

incanum

Mariola (on 

calcareous 

soils)

Sporobolus

cryptandrus

Sand 

dropseed

Zinnia sp. Zinnia (on 

calcareous 

soils)

Lippia sp. Lippia (on 

calcareous 

soils)

Mine Closure 

At closure, fence construction for the mine pit will be a minimum of three-strand barbed wire 

with warning signs. Arizona Administrative Code R11-2-401 specifies measures that include 

fencing and signage. Additionally, Rosemont will construct structures to provide additional 

safety protections if needed, such as berms around the pit, possible “tank traps” as necessary to 

restrict unauthorized road access, and upgraded fencing (i.e., chain link) if necessary on steeper 

slope areas above the pit or other areas. Operating facilities at the proposed action site will be 

demolished and removed, and building foundations will be demolished, covered with soil, and 

graded or removed. All areas will be investigated for contaminants, and any contaminated soils, 

reagents, or fuels will be disposed of off-site at licensed facilities. Post-mine land use on 
37

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Coronado National Forest lands will follow the direction in the forest plan that is in place at that 

time. Post-mining/closure reclamation objectives for Rosemont’s private property could include 

dispersed recreation, wildlife habitat, and ranching. 

Mitigation and Monitoring 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1508.20) define mitigation 

measures as follows: 

 Avoiding an impact by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; 

 Minimizing an impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its 

implementation; 

 Rectifying an impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; 

 Reducing or eliminating an impact over time, through preservation and maintenance 

operations during the life of the action; and 

 Compensating for an impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or 

environments. 

Mitigation measures can be an integral component in the design of a project [Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) 2011]. The Rosemont project contains numerous measures 

designed to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce or eliminate, or compensate for environmental 

impacts. Measures designed to mitigate impacts have been identified from a variety of sources, 

including the ID team, cooperating agencies, Rosemont Copper, and public comments. 

In its regulations, the Forest Service is directed to minimize adverse environmental impacts to 

Coronado National Forest surface resources, where feasible (36 CFR 228.8). The Coronado 

National Forest has developed a mitigation and monitoring plan that meets the guidance and 

direction specified by the CEQ and applicable laws and regulations. The plan is to be 

incorporated into the Final EIS as Appendix B. The plan also appeared as Appendix B in our 

July 3, 2013, Draft BO. It is important to note that the full suite of mitigation and monitoring 

requirements will be finalized once all required permits have been issued, as they contain 

measures required by resource agencies (including FWS) to avoid, reduce, and monitor 

environmental effects. These measures will appear as a definitive version of Appendix B in the 

Final EIS. Several drafts of Appendix B were provided to FWS during consultation and were 

considered in our effects analyses, but will not be included in this Final BO due to the 

aforementioned ongoing revisions to the former’s content. 

Guidance provided to Federal agencies by the CEQ states that agencies should not commit to 

mitigation measures absent the authority or expectation of resources to ensure the mitigation is 

performed (CEQ 2011). All suggested mitigation measures were screened by the ID team and 

recommended measures reviewed by the responsible official. Part of that review involved 

determining whether the Forest Service has the authority to require certain mitigation; whether 

the proposed mitigation would effectively avoid, reduce, eliminate, or compensate for predicted 
38

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

effects; and whether the Forest Service or another regulatory permitting agency can ensure that 

the mitigation will be implemented.

While most of mitigation measures specified in this FEIS will be required as a condition of the 

ROD, Rosemont Copper has proposed to implement a number of mitigation measures that are 

beyond the scope of authority of the Forest Service or other regulatory permitting agencies. The 

listing and description of mitigation measures and monitoring in this BO indicate which 

measures are mandated by either the Forest Service or other regulatory agencies and which are 

being proposed by Rosemont Copper. It is important to note that mitigation measures that are 

proposed by Rosemont Copper are addressed separately from mitigation that is within the 

authority of the Forest Service or other regulatory and permitting agencies, with the 

understanding that measures proposed by Rosemont Copper may or may not be implemented.

A description of mitigation and monitoring has appeared in drafts of Appendix B, which were 

considered by FWS during our effects analyses. A definitive version will appear in the Final 

EIS. The discussion that follows provides information pertaining to specific resource topics that 

provide a context for the specific mitigation and monitoring items. 

Air Resources 

An air quality permit is a requirement under the Clean Air Act, whose regulatory authority has 

been delegated from the EPA to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality to implement 

and enforce applicable federal air quality standards. The Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality issued an Air Quality Permit to Rosemont Copper on January 31, 2013. It is the 

responsibility of the mine owner/operator to maintain compliance with their air permit, which 

contains conditions to limit fugitive dust and other potential emissions. 

The Barrel alternative contains a number of mitigation and monitoring measures designed to 

reduce potential impacts to air quality and to meet federal National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS). These are described in the Mitigation and Monitoring – Other Regulatory 

and Permitting Agencies in Appendix B, which will be included in the Final EIS. Air quality 

modeling indicates that the Barrel alternative will meet NAAQS for air quality at the location of 

the perimeter fence. Further details can be found within the January 31, 2013 Air Quality Permit 

(ADEQ, Air Quality Permit Number 55223). 

Hazardous Materials 

In order to reduce potential human health and environmental risks, hazardous materials and 

substances would be managed and contained within facilities that are designed, constructed, and 

maintained to meet applicable laws and regulations. These facilities will include leak 

containment and recovery systems as required and adequate stormwater management and 

drainage systems to prevent contamination outside containment areas. 

Specific mitigation and monitoring related to hazardous materials are described in the Mitigation 

and Monitoring – Forest Service section of Appendix B, which will be included in the Final EIS. 
39

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Land Impact 

The design of the project includes efforts to restrict mine activities within a mine footprint that is 

substantially smaller than conventional mines with similar production capacity. This is achieved 

through the use of dry-stack tailings technology, which will have an overall crest-to-toe slope of 

3.5:1 (horizontal: vertical) on the outer surface of the dry-stack tailings facility and waste rock 

facilities; and concurrent revegetation requirements. Slopes will be 3:1 between benches. The 

use of dry-stack tailings facilities will avoid impacts to cultural sites; wildlife habitat; soils; 

waters of the United States; and surface water due to its smaller footprint. It will also reduce 

impacts related to water use; reduced seepage resulting from lower moisture content of the 

tailings would avoid or reduce impacts to potential groundwater contamination; and reduced 

evaporation would reduce water use. Reclamation can begin earlier, improving vegetative 

recovery. Filtered tailings will be transported, spread, and compacted to form an unsaturated, 

dense, stable tailings stack that will include a surrounding rock and soil buttress that will be 

seeded for revegetation during operations. These design features are a combination of 

requirements by the Forest Service and permit requirements under the Aquifer Protection Permit, 

issued by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality on April 3, 2012. 

Specific mitigation and monitoring related to design features that will reduce land impact are 

described in both the Mitigation and Monitoring – Forest Service, and Mitigation and Monitoring 

– Other Regulatory and Permitting Agencies sections of Appendix B, which will be included in 

the Final EIS. 

Noise 

Rosemont will use noise management techniques and operational tools to minimize noise 

generated during mine operations. Blasting only during daylight hours and sequenced blasting 

using time-delay technology have been incorporated into the proposed action design. Another 

tool to be used is attenuated back-up alarms on trucks and similar equipment that are 

electronically modulated to meet federal requirements. 

 

Specific mitigation and monitoring related to noise are described in the Mitigation and 

Monitoring – Forest Service section of Appendix B, which will be included in the Final EIS. 

Night Lighting 

To the extent allowed under MSHA regulations, all exterior and access route lighting will be 

designed and operated with the intent to reduce nighttime light pollution. Rosemont has 

developed a revised lighting plan that identified steps that will be taken to achieve the goals of 

the 2006 City of Tucson and Pima County Outdoor Lighting Code while also protecting the 

safety of the workers and visitors to the proposed action facilities (Monrad et al. 2012). The 

revised lighting plan reduces the amount of light proposed for the site by at least 75% and 

incorporates additional mitigation measures. Where safety requirements allow, outdoor lighting 

design incorporated the following: appropriate shields; dimmers and/or full cutoff lighting 

fixtures; timers; motion detectors; directional lighting; limited spectrum technologies; and 
40

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

production of the minimum lumens practicable. In addition, structures are to be designed and 

painted to be non-reflective to reduce glare and are to incorporate strategic placement of lighting 

fixtures. 

The light pollution mitigation recommendation report identifies the six principal mitigation 

strategies that were used to develop a lighting design plan (Monrad et al. 2012): 

1. Employ twenty-first century light sources (e.g., light emitting diodes [LED], induction, 

organic LED, or plasma) and use strategies such as adaptive lighting and on-demand 

lighting 

2. Employ very well shielded and aimed light sources 

3. Employ spectral control with the ability to manage the emission of certain wavelengths 

4. Use the smallest necessary light source (i.e., “lumen package”)

5. Address the environmental concerns of native flora and fauna 

6. Use solid-state lighting for vehicular-mounted task lighting to impart less stray light and 

direct more useful light to critical task and operation areas 

The primary mitigation strategy that specifically addresses the environmental concerns relative 

to native flora and fauna includes the use of specific LED lighting solutions (Monrad et al. 

2012). This strategy includes limitations on the use of sub-500 nanometer lighting spectra 

(generally blue light) that will be applied to minimize the impact to the night environment. The 

control of sub-500 nanometer wavelengths is a known factor in minimizing artificial lighting 

effects on nighttime insects and their predators. 

Specific mitigation and monitoring related to artificial night lighting are described in the 

Mitigation and Monitoring – Forest Service section of Appendix B (the definitive version of 

which will be included in the Final EIS) under both the Dark Skies and Biological Resources 

headings. 

Plants and Animals 

Rosemont will revegetate disturbed areas with native vegetation, excluding the pit area. A 

preliminary site seed mix has been developed from tests with native plant species that can be 

used to reclaim the proposed project site (Fehmi 2007; Fehmi et al. 2008). Seed mixes and 

methodology for revegetation will be determined in a Final Reclamation and Closure Plan 

currently under development to include the most recent changes to stormwater design, and 

ongoing investigation into revegetation potential. The selected seed mix would be informed by 

the greenhouse studies, test-plot data, reference sites, and results from previously revegetated 

areas. The Final Reclamation and Closure Plan will be completed after approval of the Record 

of Decision, but prior to approval of the final MPO. Linear features such as utilities and 

pipelines would be reclaimed to avoid fragmentation of native biological communities. 

Specifications are anticipated to be the same as those for other disturbed sites. Specific 

mitigation and monitoring related to revegetation are described in the Mitigation and Monitoring 

– Forest Service section of Appendix B (the definitive version of which will be included in the 

Final EIS), under the Soils and Revegetation heading. 
41

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Process water ponds or chemical or fuel storage areas will be enclosed, covered, or otherwise 

managed to protect wildlife, livestock, and public safety. Location and construction criteria for 

the proposed action facilities will prevent deleterious exposure of livestock, wildlife, and birds to 

toxic chemicals or hazardous conditions created by, used in, or resulting from processing 

operations. Mitigation and monitoring related to enclosing or covering these facilities are 

described in the Mitigation and Monitoring – Forest Service section of Appendix B (the 

definitive version of which will be included in the Final EIS), under the Biological Resources 

heading. Additional requirements are contained in measures listed in the Mitigation and 

Monitoring – Other Regulatory and Permitting Agencies, under Air Quality. 

In order to reduce or avoid impacts to habitat specific to rocky slopes on the east side of the 

Santa Rita Mountains, construction of the electrical power line that provides electricity to the pit 

will be located on the west-side of pit operations and within the disturbance perimeter of the pit 

and diversion structures. This will reduce disturbance to talus slopes and talussnail habitat, as 

well as reducing impacts to visual resources by avoiding construction on the ridgeline. This 

measure is described in the Mitigation and Monitoring – Forest Service section of Appendix B 

(the definitive version of which will be included in the Final EIS), under the Biological 

Resources heading. 

Invasive Species Control Plan 

Invasive species must be addressed as directed by Executive Order 13112, “Invasive Species.” 

Rosemont has prepared a preliminary invasive species control plan which will be updated prior 

to approval of the final MPO. Mitigation and monitoring requirements are contained in 

measures described in the Mitigation and Monitoring – Forest Service section of Appendix B 

(the definitive version of which will be included in the Final EIS), under the Soils and 

Revegetation and Biological Resources headings. 

Transportation Plan 

Rosemont has agreed to develop a comprehensive Transportation Plan for all project related 

roads on Coronado National Forest lands. The transportation plan will address maintenance 

standards; levels of appropriate use; methods to maintain the roadways sufficiently to prevent 

washboard, rutting, and drainage problems; commitment to replace surfacing lost to drainage; 

commitment to repair roads damaged by use; commitment to restore temporary roads to preoperation conditions during reclamation/closure; and installation and maintenance of wildlife 

crossing structures (e.g., corrugated metal pipes) under the primary access road at locations of 

known wildlife concentration. The transportation plan would be developed after approval of the 

Record of Decision and prior to approval of the final MPO. 

These measures are described in the Mitigation and Monitoring – Forest Service section of 

Appendix B (the definitive version of which will be included in the Final EIS), under the 

Transportation and Access heading. 
42

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Water Resources 

In order to conserve water, Rosemont has committed to filter the tailings and maximize water 

conservation, as detailed in the preliminary MPO (WestLand 2007). The filtered tailings will 

reduce Rosemont Copper Company’s consumption of water by 50% to 60% over traditional 

industry designs. This is a primary component of dry stack tailings previously described. 

In addition to filtering the tailings, Rosemont has also included in their facility designs a number 

of ways in which they will maximize the reuse of process water and stormwater. These 

measures are primarily required by the Aquifer Protection Permit, and are described in the 

Mitigation and Monitoring – Other Regulatory and Permitting Agencies section of Appendix B 

(the definitive version of which will be included in the Final EIS), under the Groundwater 

Quantity and Quality heading. Further detail can be found in the Aquifer Protection Permit. 

Rosemont has voluntarily committed to implement regional groundwater mitigation measures 

within the Tucson Active Management Area that will use available Central Arizona Project 

water as a source to conduct recharge within the Tucson Active Management Area. To date, 

Rosemont has recharged 45,000 acre-feet of water within the Tucson Active Management Area. 

Note that this compensatory mitigation is dependent on Central Arizona Water Project water’s 

being available to Rosemont. Further details are contained in a measures described in the 

Mitigation and Monitoring – Rosemont Copper Company section of Appendix B (the definitive 

version of which will be included in the Final EIS), under the Groundwater Quantity and Quality 

heading. 

Rosemont has stated they will annually fund the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to operate and 

maintain the existing surface water flow measurement gage at Barrel Canyon. After 5 years 

post-mining, the USGS may fund the gage or remove it at their discretion. Further details are 

contained in measures described in the Mitigation and Monitoring – Rosemont Copper Company 

section of Appendix B (the definitive version of which will be included in the Final EIS), under 

the Groundwater Quantity and Quality heading. 

Rosemont will manage water on the tailings storage and waste rock facilities to avoid or reduce 

erosion as previously described. Where mine facilities remain over the long term, specific dam 

safety permit limits require Rosemont to install permanent water control structures that may exist 

beyond the life of the mine. Specific permit conditions provide for periodic monitoring and 

maintenance of spillways, diversions, and other permanent facilities. Specific information is 

contained in a variety of measures, including those described as follows: Mitigation and 

Monitoring – Forest Service section of Appendix B (the definitive version of which will be 

included in the Final EIS), under the Surface Water Quantity and Quality heading; Mitigation 

and Monitoring – Other Regulatory and Permitting Agencies section of Appendix B (the 

definitive version of which will also be included in the Final EIS), under the Groundwater 

Quantity and Quality and Surface Water Quantity and Quality headings. Further details are 

contained in the Aquifer Protection Permit, and will be contained in the Stormwater Pollution 

Prevention Plan (developed after approval of the Record of Decision but prior to approval of the 

final MPO). 
43

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

In addition to monitoring required under the Aquifer Protection Permit (described below) 

Rosemont will monitor water quality in up to 10 springs and 16 wells located in the vicinity of 

the mine, will monitor the waste rock pile for potential seepage, and during operations will 

conduct additional waste rock characterization tests not required by ADEQ through the Aquifer 

Protection Permit. Specific information is contained in the Mitigation and Monitoring – Forest 

Service section of Appendix B (the definitive version of which will be included in the Final EIS), 

under the Groundwater Quantity and Quality heading. 

Water Source Enhancement and Mitigation 

Rosemont will construct, manage and maintain water features to reduce potential impacts to 

wildlife and livestock from reduced flow in seeps, springs, surface water and groundwater. 

Existing water features, including stock ponds, will be enhanced, and additional water features 

added as needed. Seven water features will be managed for sustainability of surface water. Up 

to 30 water features will be managed or constructed if needed for threatened and endangered 

species. This is further described in a measure in Mitigation and Monitoring – Forest Service 

section of Appendix B (the definitive version of which will be included in the Final EIS), under 

the Biological Resources heading. 

Aquifer Protection Permit 

On April 3, 2012, ADEQ issued its decision granting Aquifer Protection Permit No. P-106100 to 

Rosemont. Among other things, the aquifer protection plan requires Rosemont to manage 

discharges from its facilities so that they do not cause or contribute to a violation of aquifer water 

quality standards at the point of compliance; or, if the ambient groundwater quality already 

exceeds aquifer water quality standards at the time of permit issuance, then the discharges must 

be managed so that they do not cause further degradation of the water quality. 

Under the aquifer protection permit, Rosemont will implement a Waste Rock Segregation Plan, 

to identify and manage materials using geochemical analysis and acid-base accounting methods. 

This plan requires that a geologist or trained technician will inspect each pile of blasted and 

broken rock before removal from the active mining face and any rock that is identified as 

potentially acid-generating will be isolated from other waste rock. 

The aquifer protection permit also requires Rosemont to install monitoring wells (called “point 

of compliance” or “POC” wells) at locations around the project area approved by ADEQ. 

Rosemont is required to sample and test the groundwater in these wells on a quarterly basis and 

to report the results to ADEQ. A baseline monitoring program has been implemented as part of 

the monitoring plan in the aquifer protection permit in order to establish ambient groundwater 

conditions prior to operations. This program is in place to determine the amount of chemical 

constituents, such as sulfate and chloride, already in the aquifer. Ambient groundwater quality 

will be established before aquifer protection permit regulated facilities begin operation. A 

contingency plan is addressed in the APP. 
44

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 

This plan is required by the ADEQ as part of the process for obtaining coverage under the 

Multisector General Permit, which is also required under Section 402 of the CWA. This permit 

requires the preparation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan and implementation of control 

measures, as outlined by the ADEQ’s Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Multisector General Permit program. Coverage under this program was obtained from ADEQ by 

Rosemont Copper on February 7, 2013. The use of best management practices is an integral part 

of these plans and permits. The stormwater pollution prevention plan was prepared and the 

permit issued by ADEQ on February 7, 2013. ADEQ will review a copy of the updated SWPPP 

prior to construction. 

Mitigation and Monitoring – Evaluation and Reporting 

Rosemont Copper will fund the monitoring to which the Forest Service commits in the ROD and 

that will be defined in the final MPO. Other monitoring activities may be associated with the 

regulatory authority of Federal and State agencies and would be funded by permit fees or the 

agencies themselves as part of their normal activities. Title 36 CFR 219.11(d) states:

Use of monitoring information. Where monitoring and evaluation is required by the plan 

monitoring strategy, the responsible official must ensure that monitoring information is used to 

determine one or more of the following:

1. If site-specific actions are completed as specified in applicable decision documents;

2. If the aggregated outcomes and effects of completed and ongoing actions are achieving or 

contributing to the desired conditions;

3. If key assumptions identified for monitoring in plan decisions remain valid; and/or

4. If plan or site-specific decisions need to be modified.

Monitoring and evaluation activities will be prescribed, conducted, and/or reviewed by 

Rosemont, the Coronado National Forest, the Army Corps of Engineers, and other agencies and 

groups participating in a multiagency monitoring and evaluation task force. The Coronado 

Forest Supervisor will invite County, State, and Federal agencies with permitting or other 

regulatory authority, Rosemont Copper, and additional agencies and groups who would bring 

expertise to monitoring efforts to participate on this task force. The task force will meet at least 

annually to review and evaluate monitoring results and make recommendations to the forest 

supervisor. Evaluation will indicate: (1) whether monitoring requirements have been completed 

according to the final monitoring plan; (2) whether monitoring results indicate that the effects 

and results of mining and related activities are within the range of those predicted in the eventual 

FEIS and ROD (USFS 2013b; (3) whether monitoring activities and methods remain valid and 

whether continued monitoring is warranted going forward; and (4) whether changed conditions, 

if any, dictate modification of the final MPO and/or ROD. 

Rosemont Copper will be required to compile monitoring results into a monitoring report that 

will be provided to the Forest Service on a quarterly basis. Any monitoring result that is not in 

compliance with the effectiveness criteria will be reported to the Forest Service within 72 hours. 

After reviewing the results of these reporting requirements, the Forest Service will notify 
45

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

members of the multiagency monitoring group should conditions warrant interim or emergency 

meetings.

In addition to quarterly monitoring reports, Rosemont Copper will submit an annual report to the 

Coronado National Forest and the multiagency monitoring group that contains a description of 

all activities conducted during the previous year and a summary of applicable information as 

approved by the Forest Service, along with annual results of all monitoring plans in a format 

approved by the Forest Service, including a complete data summary and any data trends, a 

mining status plan, and plans for the coming year. Significant changes will be incorporated into 

the final MPO and reflected in financial assurance. Past, ongoing, or projected impacts on the 

environment may also require amendment of the final MPO, ROD, and/or financial assurance 

held for the project.

Rosemont Copper will fund work performed by Coronado National Forest employees, 

consultants, and/or cooperators assigned to administer and monitor the project. This includes a 

minerals administrator and a biological monitor, whose role in overseeing monitoring activities 

is described in this Biological Opinion within the Description of the Proposed Conservation 

Measures. Details regarding other Coronado National Forest positions that will be necessary for 

administering the project and overseeing monitoring are still being developed.

Postclosure Monitoring

While the Rosemont Copper Project has been designed with the intent of minimizing long-term 

maintenance and monitoring, it is recognized that the potential exists for continued monitoring of 

postmine conditions. To that end, all reclaimed sites will be monitored a minimum of twice a 

year for a period to be determined, in order to evaluate the success of reclamation work. Any 

areas not meeting reclamation goals will be analyzed to determine the underlying problems, 

which would be addressed with a modified plan. 

In addition, groundwater will be monitored for a specific period of time to be decided by ADEQ 

closure requirements under the Aquifer Protection Permit, as well as at other well and spring 

locations determined by the Forest. Surface water will be monitored as required in the Arizona 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program following cessation of mining operations. 

Final monitoring details and locations will be decided when the ADEQ reviews the Stormwater 

Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Results of this monitoring will be used to evaluate the 

success of the measures taken to protect the water resources. Any changes in water quality will 

be evaluated to determine whether the changes are related to the reclaimed mining features, and 

appropriate steps will be taken to address the problem. Financial assurance will be adjusted to 

the extent allowed by law and regulation related to these ongoing activities. 

Conservation Measures 

These conservation measures appear in the February 2013 Supplemental BA and are additive to, 

or help clarify those in, the initial and the October 2012 Supplemental BA. 

On behalf of the Coronado National Forest, Rosemont agrees to implement the following 

conservation measures for the Rosemont Copper project. 
46

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

A. General Monitoring and Reporting Requirements 

1. The Coronado National Forest shall identify a Coronado National Forest journey-level 

biologist (GS-9 or higher grade), the Biological Monitor, to provide oversight and assess 

compliance with these conservation measures and any Reasonable and Prudent Measures 

and Terms and Conditions. Rosemont shall reimburse the Coronado National Forest for 

work performed by the Biological Monitor, along with necessary overhead and 

supervisory support to the extent necessary to perform the duties as outlined below. 

1.1. The Biological Monitor shall support biological monitoring for listed and non-listed 

species and biological resources, as well as other mitigation and monitoring measures 

that may be required by the Coronado National Forest. 

1.2. The Biological Monitor will coordinate directly with Rosemont and Rosemont’s 

consultants on behalf of the Forest Service, as well as the Coronado National Forest 

Project Implementation Monitor, and shall be responsible for reviewing and approving 

submitted reports and analyses. 

1.3. Initially, the level of effort anticipated to perform the role outlined above (specifically for 

ESA commitments) is estimated at approximately 20 percent of a full-time employee 

position. Additional cost recovery for the Biological Monitor may also be needed for 

oversight on reclamation, invasive species management, and mitigation measures for 

migratory birds and sensitive species. The funding requirements will be reviewed and 

updated annually, and shall continue through the life of the project and for five years 

following mine closure. Monitoring activities, unless specifically stated otherwise in the 

conservation measures described below, are anticipated to occur throughout the life of the 

project and for 5 years following mine closure. Rosemont and the Biological Monitor, 

with the FWS, shall review the monitoring results annually. If appropriate, monitoring 

requirements and methods may be reduced or eliminated. 

1.4. The Biological Monitor shall be Rosemont’s primary point of contact with the Coronado 

National Forest for all activities related to biological resources. The Biological Monitor 

will be the principal liaison with all other stakeholder agencies. Rosemont shall report 

significant findings, its reports, etc., to the Biological Monitor first, rather than providing 

such information directly to FWS, AGFD, or BLM. This requirement shall not prohibit 

or limit the reporting obligations established in Rosemont’s consultant’s or biological 

contractor’s scientific collecting permits. The Biological Monitor will coordinate 

biological monitoring activities with the Rosemont Environmental Manager or other 

designated representative as identified by Rosemont. 

2. Rosemont shall be responsible for all monitoring and reporting. The Biological Monitor 

will assess compliance with conservation measures through field visits and inspection 

and by review of an Annual Report. This conservation measure is augmented by Term 

and Condition 2 for the Chiricahua leopard frog which also requires the monitoring of 

suitable habitat on National Forest System and Rosemont-owned land within one mile of 

the active operations area, including on-site stormwater ponds, twice monthly from July 1 

through September 30, while the mine is in operation. If Chiricahua leopard frogs are 
47

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

detected on site or within a mile of the active operations area, they will be relocated to 

suitable habitat within the management area under close coordination with the local 

recovery group. 

3. Rosemont shall prepare an Annual Conservation Measure Implementation and 

Monitoring Report (“Annual Report”) at the end of each calendar year. The Annual 

Report shall be due to Coronado National Forest by January 31 of the next calendar year 

throughout the life of the project and for five years post- closure. This report will 

include, but is not limited to, the following: 

3.1. A brief narrative or tabular description of the specific actions accomplished with regard 

to each specific conservation measure (and Reasonable and Prudent Measures’ Terms 

and Conditions, also a condition of reporting). 

3.2. A brief narrative or tabular description/summary of the objective of each of the 

conservation measures and whether the objective of that conservation measure was or 

was not met. 

3.3. A brief narrative or tabular description/summary of the status of concurrent reclamation 

efforts. 

3.4. A brief narrative or tabular description on the status of invasive species management. 

3.5. For each conservation measure description and summary a change in baseline (e.g., 

number of water features with breeding Chiricahua Leopard Frogs CLF) from previous 

years’ surveys) condition will be provided.

3.6. Amount of take of threatened and endangered species 

3.7. A brief narrative or tabular summary of any problems, issues, or opportunities 

encountered in the prior calendar year with regard to the implementation of the 

conservation measures, Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions that 

may be authorized by the FWS, or other biological mitigation and monitoring measures. 

3.8. A brief narrative or summary of any adaptive management actions taken, and 

recommendations for future adaptive management actions to be considered by Rosemont, 

Coronado National Forest, and the FWS. 

3.9. Along with hard-copy reports, Rosemont will provide editable electronic files, including 

GIS files, in a format that can be used by Coronado National Forest. The Coronado 

National Forest will convert editable files to uneditable files before sharing outside the 

agency. 

4. Rosemont will ensure that anyone dealing directly with threatened and endangered 

species (e.g., surveys, salvage, translocation, etc.) for the Project has valid state and 

federal scientific collecting permits, or are agents on Coronado National Forest’s or other 

suitable permits. Surveyors must send copies of permits with the year-end reports to the 

Biological Monitor as proof of compliance. 

5. The Coronado National Forest will reinitiate section 7 consultation pursuant to the Act if

the Coronado National Forest and FWS determine that Conservation Measures and/or 

Reasonable and Prudent Measures’ Terms and Conditions have not been met.
48

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

B. Sonoita Creek Ranch: 

Please note that Sonoita Creek Ranch Conservation Measures appearing below have been revised 

based on the input of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, with additional clarifying text 

subsequently added by FWS. 

1. Rosemont has acquired the right to purchase Sonoita Creek Ranch, which contains 

approximately 1,200 acres of land along Sonoita Creek with an estimated 590 acre-feet of 

certificated surface water rights from Monkey Spring along Sonoita Creek. The Sonoita 

Creek Ranch parcel is part of the Conservation Measures for the Chiricahua leopard frog, 

Gila chub, Gila topminnow, Huachuca water umbel, lesser long-nosed bat, jaguar, ocelot, 

and the candidate yellow-billed cuckoo. The Sonoita Creek Ranch lands will be made 

available to a suitable agency, land trust or conservation organization via the in-lieu fee 

(ILF) mitigation program, which may be used to mitigate for impacts to waters of the 

U.S., in conformance with the Corps’ 2008 mitigation rule (73 FR 19594). The ILF 

mitigation program allows a project proponent (e.g. Rosemont) to transfer funding to a 

governmental or non-profit natural resource management entity with which the Corps has 

an approved enabling instrument (the agreement entered into between the Corps and the 

management entity allowing the latter to be an ILF sponsor and to accept and expend 

funds for mitigation projects). If an ILF mitigation program is not able to be developed, 

Rosemont will be responsible for either implementing conservation measures and/or any 

mitigation activities required as part of the Section 404 permit on Sonoita Creek Ranch, 

or finding a conservation partner to implement such conservation measures and 

mitigation activities. Whether an ILF program is developed or other conservation 

arrangements are made by Rosemont, Sonoita Creek Ranch will be managed for 

conservation purposes, as stated below. 

2. In the event that the property is used for an ILF program, it is not anticipated that the 

wildlife conservation benefits described below will be affected. If modification to any 

conservation measures is ultimately determined to be required, the Corps will work with 

USFS, FWS, and Rosemont to modify the conservation measures in a manner that would 

not change the evaluation for each species and which would result in the same benefits 

for each species but would not conflict with Section 404 mitigation requirements. 

3. Rosemont will record a restrictive covenant or conservation easement on the Sonoita 

Creek Ranch property that precludes real estate development and similar land use 

activities and livestock grazing and other agricultural uses subject to the limitations 

outlined below. This restrictive covenant shall not restrict access for recreational or 

traditional cultural purposes to these lands provided that these uses are not incompatible 

with the conservation uses of the property as determined by the Land Manager and the 

FWS. If ILF program is not employed and the Sonoita Creek Ranch property is instead 

used for permittee responsible Section 404 mitigation (meaning that the Rosemont 

Copper Company will implement mitigative measures rather than funding an ILF 
49

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

sponsor), the Corps shall determine the type of site protection instrument (a conservation 

easement or similar land encumbrance) for the property and the stipulations required for 

protection giving consideration to access for traditional cultural purposes. In the event 

that the Sonoita Creek Ranch will serve as an ILF project, the site protection instrument 

shall be as described in the enabling instrument of the Corps-approved ILF sponsor. For 

example, if the site is developed by an entity as an ILF project, the site protection 

instrument shall be a conservation agreement in accordance with that entities’ Corpsapproved ILF enabling instrument. 

4. Rosemont anticipates transferring ownership of Sonoita Creek Ranch, including the 

appurtenant water rights, to a suitable owner for conservation purposes consistent with 

the conservation and public benefits contemplated by these conservation measures. 

5. Unless the property is used for an ILF program, funding for long-term management will 

be provided by Rosemont to a conservation partner via a payment of $150,000 per year to 

a management account for a period of 10 years commencing with the production of 

copper concentrates at the project. Under an ILF program, funding for the approved 

mitigation plan (which will include long term maintenance and adaptive management) 

shall be developed through the sale of mitigation credits.

6. Surface water rights will be used to support the existing ponds that will be managed for 

threatened and endangered species. Water available after the needs of the existing ponds 

have been met will be discharged onto the floodplain terrace of Sonoita Creek that is 

currently an agricultural field to facilitate the restoration of wetland and/or riparian 

habitat. 

The two perennial ponds, adjacent wetland habitat, and earthen-lined channel between 

the ponds on Sonoita Creek Ranch will be renovated to provide habitat for the threatened 

and endangered species. Requirements for specific recovery activities pertaining to 

Chiricahua leopard frogs are set forth in Term and Condition 4 for Chiricahua leopard 

frog. We anticipate that an approved conservation partner will implement the proposed 

renovation efforts. In addition to the payments described in #5 above, Rosemont will 

provide a total of $100,000 in support of these renovation efforts. Funding for this effort 

will be provided by Rosemont via a payment of $20,000 per year to a management 

account for a period of 5 years commencing with the production of copper concentrates at 

the Project. If the pond renovation is incorporated into a Corps-approved ILF project, 

funding for the pond renovation shall be developed through the sale of mitigation credits. 

7. Sonoita Creek Ranch will be managed for conservation purposes to provide habitat and 

connectivity for the Jaguar and Ocelot between the Canelo Hills/Patagonia Mountains 

and the Santa Rita Mountains, slightly over a mile away to the west of the ranch, in 

perpetuity. The southern portion of the ranch has been identified by the Arizona Wildlife 
50

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Linkages Workgroup and the Arizona Missing Linkages Corridor design as a likely 

corridor between these two Coronado National Forest land blocks. 

8. Management actions in Sonoita Creek Ranch will not compromise the ability to manage 

for threatened and endangered species. This includes species that are not currently 

present, but could recolonize the area if habitat were improved. 

9. Wildlife-friendly fencing will be installed to discourage use by cattle and encourage use 

by threatened and endangered species. If an ILF program is not developed, Rosemont 

will construct wildlife fence along the west boundary of the property to enhance the 

utilization of the SR 82 crossing of Big Casa Blanca Canyon and Smith Canyon. The 

balance of fence repaired or replaced at Sonoita Creek Ranch will be wildlife-friendly 

for-strand wire fence built in accordance with AGFD standards. Under an ILF program, 

fencing would be designed to exclude cattle and be wildlife friendly, but details for the 

fencing would be finalized by the Corps and the ILF sponsor. 

C. Davidson Canyon Watershed Parcels 

1. Rosemont owns six parcels of land on the eastern side of the Santa Rita Mountains, 

containing approximately 574 acres of land with semidesert grassland and riparian 

habitat. 

2. Rosemont will record a restrictive covenant or conservation easement on the Davidson 

Canyon Watershed Parcels that precludes real estate development and similar land use 

activities and restricts grazing. 

3. The Davidson Canyon Watershed Parcels will be included as available land for the 

establishment of water features beneficial to listed species and to provide general wildlife 

benefits. 

4. Portions of the Davidson Canyon Watershed Parcels have been identified as culturally 

important by Native Americans. None of the conservation actions outlined for the 

Davidson Canyon Watershed Parcels will preclude reasonable access to these parcels by 

interested Native American groups. 

D. Helvetia Ranch Annex North Parcels 

1. Rosemont will record a restrictive covenant or conservation easement on the Helvetia 

Ranch Annex North Parcels that precludes real estate development and similar land use 

activities. 

2. The Helvetia Ranch Annex North Parcels will be included as available land for the 

establishment of water features beneficial to listed species such as the Chiricahua 

Leopard Frog, jaguar, and ocelot and to provide general wildlife benefits. See elements 

of Conservation Measures G, H, and I. 

E. Cienega Creek Watershed 
51

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Rosemont has acquired the right to purchase approximately 1,122 ac-ft of surface water rights 

held by the Del Lago Golf Course. These surface water rights will be used to enhance aquatic 

habitat values in the Cienega Creek Watershed. The acquired rights are: 

• 1908 Right (ADWR Certificate 610.0002) of 597.755 ac-ft per annum, 

• 1933 Right (ADWR Certificate 665.0003) of 477.545 ac-ft per annum, and 

• 1935 Right (ADWR Certificate 617.0002) of 46.455 ac-ft per annum. 

1. Rosemont will provide funding for stream renovation and restoration projects to increase 

water flows and enhance wetlands in the Cienega Creek watershed. The location and 

design of these projects will be determined by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

and other necessary agencies, with input from other key stakeholders in the watershed, 

including the Coronado National Forest and the FWS. 

1.1. Rosemont will provide funding for these projects by establishing a $2,000,000 fund (the 

Conservation Fund). The Conservation Fund will be established through the annual 

payment of $200,000 for 10 years to an escrow or other suitable account managed and 

controlled by a suitable entity (the Conservation Partner). Payments to the fund will 

commence beginning on April 1 of the year following the year in which copper 

concentrates are initially produced at the Rosemont Copper Project and will be made on 

that same day in each succeeding calendar year until a total of $2,000,000 has been 

contributed to the Conservation Fund. Not more than 15 percent of this fund may be 

used by the Conservation Partner for fund administration, with the balance used for direct 

project execution. 

1.2. The Conservation Partner shall work cooperatively and in consultation with FWS, 

Coronado National Forest, the BLM, agencies, organizations, and other landowners in the 

watershed to fund the development and implementation of conservation measures 

designed to preserve and enhance aquatic and riparian ecosystems and protect and 

maintain habitat for federally listed aquatic and riparian species in the watershed. These 

projects may include surveys for and removal of bullfrogs, crayfish and other nonnative 

species in the watershed. The funds can be used to support approved management efforts 

by Pima County to control invasive aquatic species in the Cienega Creek Nature Preserve 

below and above the Pantano Dam. Project funds are not to be used for remediation of 

unanticipated issues associated with the Rosemont Project, such as waste rock slope 

failure. Funds can be used for initial restoration activities and adaptive management. It 

is recommended that some funds be reserved in anticipation of unforeseen issues (e.g., 

new invasive species) and adaptive management. 

2. Rosemont will transfer 150 acre-feet of the 1933 water right to a suitable entity 

authorized under Arizona law to hold a surface water right for recreation and wildlife 

purposes, subject to the conditions described in C-5 below. This water right must be used 

to preserve and enhance the aquatic and riparian ecosystem in the upper Cienega Creek 
52

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

watershed for the benefit of federally listed species and other native species of fish, 

wildlife and plants. 

3. Rosemont will transfer 100 acre-feet of the 1933 water right to Pima County (or to 

another entity authorized under Arizona law to hold a surface water right for recreation 

and wildlife purposes), subject to the conditions described in C-5 below. Following 

transfer, these water rights must be used to preserve and enhance the aquatic and riparian 

ecosystem the County’s Cienega Creek Natural Preserve, for the benefit of federally 

listed species and other native species of fish, wildlife and plants. 

4. Rosemont will transfer all of the 1935 water right to Pima County (or to another entity 

authorized under Arizona law to hold a surface water right for recreation and wildlife 

purposes), subject to the conditions described in C-5 below to the lower reach of 

Davidson Wash within the Cienega Creek Nature Preserve that has also been designated 

an Outstanding Arizona Water. Following transfer, these water rights must be used to 

enhance and maintain the aquatic and riparian ecosystem in the lower reach of Davidson 

Canyon within the County’s Cienega Creek Natural Preserve, for the benefit of federally 

listed species and other native species of fish, wildlife and plants. 

5. To facilitate the transfer, Rosemont will file an application to sever 250 acre-feet of the 

1933 water right and all of the 1935 water right and transfer the place of diversion and 

beneficial use to the Cienega Creek watershed, at such location(s) as may be determined 

in coordination and consultation Pima County and other entities. Such application will be 

filed with the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) within 30 days of 

issuance of the ROD or Section 404 permit, whichever is issued later. The severance and 

transfer of the water right is subject to approval by ADWR. It is anticipated that it will 

take approximately two years for ADWR to review and approve the application. It is also 

possible that irrigation districts and other water rights holders will object to the severance 

and transfer application, which may delay the approval process and could cause ADWR 

to deny the application in whole or in part. In addition, due to the nature of Rosemont’s 

agreement with the current owner of the water right, the transfer of the water right may 

be delayed until January 1, 2016. Rosemont will work diligently and in good faith to 

prepare and prosecute the severance and transfer application and will bear all costs 

associated with the application. 

6. The balance of the surface water rights, approximately 825 ac-ft per annum, will be used 

for aquifer recharge below Pantano Dam. To accomplish this, a “managed underground 

storage facility” (MUSF) will be permitted through the Arizona Department of Water 

Resources (ADWR). This will allow surface water flows currently diverted for golf 

course irrigation to be captured and discharged back to the stream bed below the Pantano 

Dam within the Cienega Creek Nature Preserve. In the event that an ILF program is 

established in this area, a portion of this water right may not be directly discharged to the 

MUSF, but instead used for irrigation of floodplain habitat. Regardless, the entirety of 
53

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

the 825 ac-ft per annum will be discharged to the Pantano Wash system downstream of 

the Pantano Dam. 

6.1. Additional benefits may be realized beyond the benefits associated with CWA Section 

404 mitigation for the Rosemont project. Pima County, the Pima County Regional Flood 

Control District and the Tucson Audubon Society may, at their discretion develop an ILF 

mitigation program in reliance on the waters discharged to the MUSF in excess of the 

benefits expected to support in part, Rosemont’s CWA Section 404 mitigation 

requirements. These potential future ILF mitigation credits that may or may not be 

developed here are not considered part of Rosemont’s proposed conservation measures.

A groundwater well is located on lands associated with the Pantano Dam. Rosemont will 

acquire and retire this well to so that any potential effects of that well on the surface 

water of Cienega Creek and the Pantano Wash from its use and operation do not occur. 

F. Water Features and Grazing Management 

1. Rosemont’s Allotments (Thurber, Debaud, Greaterville, and Rosemont) are subject to the 

requirements of the Federal Land Management and Policy Act, 43 U.S.C. § 1752, and 

the Forest Service’s regulations governing grazing management, codified at 36 C.F.R. 

Part 222. In accordance with those requirements, Rosemont will prepare and submit to 

the Coronado National Forest a request to modify the Allotment Management Plans 

(AMP) for the allotments within one year after the issuance of the ROD. The 

modifications will be developed in consultation, cooperation and coordination with the 

Coronado National Forest range staff and the Biological Monitor, with input from other 

entities.

2. Rosemont will request modification of the AMPs specifying that to compensate for the 

permanent loss of flowering agaves for lesser long-nosed bats (LLNB) due the proposed 

mine (security fence and roads; 4,013) acres, grazing by cattle will be restricted during 

the April 1 to June 15 period through rotation to alternative pastures on approximately 

8,000 acres of portions of the Debaud, Greaterville and Rosemont allotments that 

currently are permitted to be grazed during the agave bolting period. 

3. Portions of the pastures within Coronado National Forest grazing allotments leased to 

Rosemont will be put on a winter rotation to limit grazing during the growing season 

within riparian areas. 

4. Key pastures will be rested for extended periods of time and made available for grazing 

when forage production on active pastures is reduced because of drought or other factors. 

This “grass bank” element within the modified AMP is similarly expected to enhance 

overall forage production within the Allotments without a reduction in current cattle 

stocking rates. 

5. Rosemont will enhance existing water features, including stock ponds, and add additional 

water features throughout the allotments to mitigate for potential project impacts to seeps 

and springs on their grazing allotments. Up to 30 potential water features will be 
54

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

managed or constructed, if needed, for metapopulation management (persistence) of 

CLF, and to meet the minimum requirements of Jaguar proposed/designated critical 

habitat PCEs. This Conservation Measure (5.1 through 5.3) is augmented in part by 

Term and Condition 5 for Chiricahua leopard frog which requires coordination with the 

local recovery group with respect to locations and design specifications for water features 

intended to benefit Chiricahua leopard frogs. 

5.1 Water feature enhancements and construction proposed to support a CLF metapopulation 

will be implemented within one year from the start of mining activities. A summary of 

the water features and proposed mitigation measures is provided in section for CLF 

Conservation Measures. 

5.2. Additional water features proposed for construction within the Rosemont-controlled 

grazing allotments will be implemented as needed and based on the findings of ongoing 

groundwater and seep and spring monitoring activities. [See CLF and Aquatic Species 

conservation measures for description of monitoring activities.] Rosemont will work 

cooperatively with the Biological Monitor to identify specific springs and seeps impacted 

by the proposed action and will construct water features to mitigate for those losses. 

5.3. Rosemont will establish a long-term management and maintenance fund to maintain the 

water features constructed in furtherance of this conservation measure. 

G. Chiricahua Leopard Frog 

1. Conservation measures included for Sonoita Creek Ranch, Cienega Creek Watershed, 

and the section on Water Features and Grazing that benefit CLF are incorporated here by 

reference. 

2. Rosemont will conduct pre-disturbance surveys, following AGFD/FWS survey protocols, 

of suitable habitat within the footprint of the proposed construction area and a 1⁄4 mile 

buffer of the security fence prior to construction. 

2.1. Surveys will be conducted in the survey season prior to the initiation of construction 

activities. 

2.2. Surveyors shall use the latest version of standard disinfection techniques to guard against 

spread of disease between surveyed tanks and other water features. 

2.3. If CLF are found in the survey area, Rosemont will contact the Biological Monitor to 

facilitate capture and relocation of CLF or otherwise determine their fate. Prior to 

relocation, captured frogs will be tested for chytridiomycosis. 

2.4. Surveyors will swab dead and dying frogs to test for chytridiomycosis. Periodic 

swabbing of live frogs will also be required. Rosemont will pay for testing on up to ten 

frogs. Alternatively, environmental DNA testing may be useful for advanced testing, 

when methods are refined, and cost effective, and may be substituted for testing of 

individual frogs. 

2.5. The Biological Monitor shall approve the list of vendors where samples will be sent for 

chytridiomycosis testing. 
55

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

3. Rosemont will conduct annual monitoring for CLF. This Conservation Measure (G-3.1 –

G-3.6) is augmented in part by Term and Condition 2 for Chiricahua leopard frog which 

requires a specific monitoring strategy and corrective action for potential Chiricahua 

leopard frog habitat within one mile (overland) of the project area. 

3.1. Surveys will be conducted annually commencing from the first spring survey period after 

construction activities begins through closure. 

3.2. Surveys will be conducted using established survey protocols. 

3.3. Surveys will be conducted in suitable habitat within the perimeter fence area and within 

suitable habitat within one mile of the perimeter fence area. 

3.4. Any dead or dying frog encountered during annual monitoring surveys will be swabbed 

to test for chytridiomycosis. 

3.5. During annual monitoring surveys, periodic swabbing of live, healthy appearing frogs 

will be required to test for the presence of chytridiomycosis. Up to 10 samples will be 

collected during each annual survey effort. Alternatively, environmental DNA testing 

may be useful for advanced testing, when methods are refined, and cost effect, and may 

be substituted for testing of individual frogs. 

3.6. Surveyors will note any American Bullfrogs and other non-native, invasive aquatic 

species encountered during survey. 

4. Tank/water feature construction will be implemented, if needed, to support maintenance 

of the metapopulation in the Greaterville area (see Water Feature and Grazing 

Conservation Measures for additional discussion). This Conservation Measure (G-4.1 

through G-4.6) is replaced in part by Term and Condition 5 for Chiricahua leopard frog 

which does not call for specific tanks to be renovated but rather requires coordination 

with the local recovery group with respect to locations and design specifications for 

water features intended to benefit Chiricahua leopard frogs. 

4.1. The following tanks will be renovated to increase the reliability of water features 

available to support the CLF Greaterville metapopulation 

Table I-4: Excerpt from February 2013 Supplemental BA Table entitled Tanks within the Greaterville 

Chiricahua Leopard Frog metapopulation that will be renovated to enhance the reliability of the tanks to 

support the species

Tank Name Proposed Improvements

Bowman Tank Renovations and improvements to earthen stock tanks to increase 

water holding capacity and duration. Renovations to stock tanks 

would involve removal of sediments to increase their volume, 

compaction of substrates (i.e., fines, if available) in the tank basin 

and berm to decrease infiltration, and/or installation of impervious 

liners to impede infiltration in all or part of the basin. Design 

consideration will be given to installation of structures (e.g., gabions, 

silt traps) for erosion and sediment control. Supplement surface 

California Gulch Tank East

California Gulch Tank West

Enzenberg Canyon Tank

Granite Mountain Tank
56

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Granite Tank waters with structure for breeding, thermoregulation, and hiding. 

Examples of structure include submergent and emergent vegetation, 

North Greaterville Tank bank vegetation, shrub branches above and below the surface.

4.2. Renovation activities will commence within one year of initiation of construction 

activities to develop the Project. We presume this to mean that renovation activities will 

commence within one year of the implementation of water feature enhancements and 

construction proposed to support a CLF metapopulation (see Conservation Measure F. 5(1), 

above), which itself is to be implemented within one year of the initiation of the proposed action.

4.3. Rosemont will monitor the integrity of the seven renovated tanks listed above annually 

during the life of the mine and for five years post closure. 

4.4. Rosemont will participate in CLF recovery team meetings for the Southeastern Arizona 

Working Group and Recovery Unit 2 to find opportunities and solutions toward species 

recovery in Recovery Unit 2. 

5. To the extent determined necessary by the Biological Monitor, Rosemont will create up 

to 23 new water features to support CLF in the northern Santa Rita Mountains, in the area 

within the 5-ft, 150-year drawdown area, mapped by WestLand (2012a). This 

Conservation Measure (G-5.1 through G-5.3) is augmented in part by Term and 

Condition 5 for Chiricahua leopard frog which requires coordination with the local 

recovery group with respect to locations and design specifications for water features 

intended to benefit Chiricahua leopard frogs. 

5.1 The water features will be constructed within Rosemont-controlled grazing allotments, 

the Helvetia Ranch Parcels, and the Davidson Watershed Parcels. 

5.2 They will generally follow the conceptual designs and locations provided in WestLand 

(2012a). The selection of the appropriate design and location shall be made in 

consultation with the Biological Monitor. 

5.3 The new structures are intended to enhance metapopulation dynamics, but not at the 

expense of encouraging rapid colonization between recovery unit populations, dispersal 

of invasive aquatic species, or spread of chytridiomycosis. 

6.0. As part of the Invasive Species Management Plan, Rosemont will implement control 

measures to remove invasive aquatic species that have the potential to negatively affect 

CLF such as American Bullfrog, crayfish, and spiny-rayed, warm water fish species. 

Methods for implementation of this program will be outlined in an updated Invasive 

Species Management Plan. 

6.1. The program will be implemented beginning in the first year copper is produced. 

6.2 The program will include the seven tanks renovated as part of the CLF conservation 

measures near Greaterville, new tanks constructed as part of these conservation measures 

during the life of the Project, and at other suitable CLF habitats within the perimeter 

fence. 

7. Up to four of the stormwater ponds located along the perimeter of the reclamation 

footprint and included in the reclamation plan will be designed in a fashion that will 
57

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

facilitate their use by CLF following the general principals outlined in WestLand 

(2012a). The timing of construction of these features will be dictated by the timing of 

concurrent reclamation programs, in coordination with the Biological Monitor. This 

conservation measure is superseded by Term and Condition 3 for Chiricahua leopard 

frog. 

8. If it is determined that CLF are or may be exposed to process water harmful to CLF, 

Rosemont will construct barriers to exclude CLF from these areas. This work will be 

conducted in coordination with the Biological Monitor. 

H. Aquatic Species: Gila Chub, Gila Topminnow, Huachuca Water Umbel 

1. Conservation measures included for Sonoita Creek Ranch and Cienega Creek Watershed 

that benefit these species are incorporated here by reference. 

2. Rosemont will implement the conceptual monitoring plan prepared by Water and Earth 

Technologies (2012) to evaluate impacts of groundwater drawdown to surface water 

features to the extent that authorization to install and access proposed monitoring sites are 

obtained. Two of the sites identified in this report have been installed and monitoring is 

being conducted at these sites. Application for the other monitoring locations has been 

made to the Arizona State Land Department. As authorizations for these sites are 

obtained, monitoring will commence at these sites. 

3. Groundwater monitoring wells constructed and being constructed for the Aquifer 

Protection Permit (APP) will be monitored on quarterly basis for depth to ground water 

and water quality as prescribed by the APP. These data will be provided to the FS for 

comparison to the model predicted impacts to groundwater elevation changes. In 

addition, a suite of 21 existing wells and one new well within and beyond the footprint 

of the proposed mine will be monitored for depth to ground water over the long term. 

Certain of these existing wells are placed and will allow monitoring of water levels 

between the project area and: 

• Lower Cienega Creek

• Upper Cienega Creek

• Empire Gulch

• Lower Davidson Canyon

• Box Canyon

4. Should groundwater quality data reach alert or compliance standards Rosemont will 

comply with the requirements of the APP. 

5. The stormwater permit for the project imposes specific requirements for surface water 

sampling and it will be implemented in accordance with the requirements of ADEQ as 

specified by EPA. Should impacts over and above the levels predicted in the EIS be 

anticipated by monitoring efforts, the funding provided by the Cienega Creek Watershed 

Conservation Fund will be used to implement adaptive management strategies to offset 

unanticipated effects. 

6. Monitor geomorphic changes to Davidson Canyon. 
58

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

6.1 Initial monitoring will begin at the start of construction and then conducted at the same 

monitoring sites every five years until five years after closure. 

6.2 Four sample sites will be established by Rosemont. The Biological Monitor will approve 

site location. 

6.3 Geomorphic monitoring will be conducted using the Forest Service Protocol or an agreed 

upon alternative approved by the Biological Monitor. 

7. If monitoring shows the Cienega Creek Watershed is being affected, the Cienega Creek 

Watershed Conservation Fund should be used as a resource to fund mitigation projects. 

8. The Cienega Creek Watershed Conservation Fund cannot be used outside of the Cienega 

Creek Watershed or to implement other conservation measures proposed by Rosemont 

(WestLand 2013a). 

I. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 

1. Conservation measures included in sections for Cienega Creek Watershed, CLF, and 

Aquatic Species that benefit Southwestern Willow Flycatcher are incorporated here by 

reference.

J. Jaguar and Ocelot 

1. Conservation measures included in sections for Sonoita Creek Ranch, Cienega Creek 

Watershed, Davidson Watershed Parcels, Helvetia Ranch Annex North Parcels, Water 

Features and Grazing, and Aquatic Species (particularly monitoring aspects within the 

current configuration of proposed Jaguar critical habitat) that benefit Jaguar and Ocelot 

are incorporated here by reference. 

2. Rosemont will ensure that restored or replaced springs (see Water Features Conservation 

Measures, above) within Jaguar critical habitat (most current delineation) are constructed 

in accordance with Jaguar PCEs for surface water. 

3. As part of the concurrent reclamation program Rosemont will establish a percentage of 

woody vegetation cover consistent with the elements of jaguar critical habitat (note that 

the relevant PCE is from >1 to 50 percent) as averaged over reclamation area, excluding 

the pit. This shall be established as a prescriptive obligation of the concurrent 

reclamation program in appropriate areas as determined in conjunction with the 

Biological Monitor during project development. 

4. Monitor road-kill weekly on SR 83, adjacent to mine site, from the northern extent of 

currently proposed critical habitat to Gardner Canyon Road, to assess loss of Jaguar, 

Ocelot, or Jaguar prey base (white-tailed and mule deer, collared peccary, white-nosed 

coati, in particular). Monitoring will begin at the commencement of mine construction 

and continue through the second year of mine operation, a total of four years. After the 

initial four years of monitoring, the Biological Monitor, working with Rosemont, FWS, 

and other entities, will determine if additional field data collection is necessary to inform 

determination of crossing need and location. Report road-kill in the annual report. 
59

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Smaller Ocelot prey (lagomorphs, rodents) do not need to be reported. Mortality of any 

FS and BLM sensitive species should also be reported. This work may be conducted by 

the Biological Monitor as part of their regular site visits funded by Rosemont, with 

funding from the proponent. In addition to increasing knowledge regarding the 

movement of wildlife in the area, information collected during this investigation may 

identify a suitable wildlife crossing structure location that could be constructed using 

Regional Transportation Authority funds dedicated for that purpose. 

5. Report all Jaguar and Ocelot sightings immediately to the Biological Monitor. 

6. Rosemont will provide $50,000 to a suitable entity approved by the Coronado National 

Forest to support camera studies for large predators including Jaguar and Ocelot. The 

money will be provided for additional monitoring efforts between the Santa Rita and the 

Whetstone Mountains and along the Santa Rita Mountains. In addition to increasing 

knowledge regarding the movement of wildlife in the area, information collected during 

this investigation may identify a suitable wildlife crossing structure location that could be 

constructed using Regional Transportation Authority funds dedicated for that purpose. 

K. Lesser Long-nosed Bat: 

The June 2012 BA includes some Conservation Measures which have been updated in 

subsequent versions of the BA and through discussions with Rosemont and the Coronado 

National Forest. For example: Bullet 1: there is not a final MPO yet, so we cannot confirm 

content, hence, what conservation measures may be included; Bullet 2: there is no detailed 

Palmer Agave management strategy; and Bullet 3: these are multi-species minimization 

measures (multiple-species design criteria). 

Conservation measures included in sections for Sonoita Creek Ranch, Davidson Watershed 

Parcels, Helvetia Ranch Annex North Parcels, and Water Features and Grazing that benefit 

LLNB are incorporated here by reference. Additional conservation measures include: 

1. Prior to submittal of proposed modification of the Allotment Management Plan 

(Conservation Measure D.2), Rosemont shall refine existing estimates of Palmer Agave 

that will be impacted within the security fence area and conduct studies sufficient to 

identify and establish baseline conditions of pastures that will be proposed in the AMP 

modification for seasonal grazing restrictions to increase flowering success of agave. 

2. Rosemont shall include Palmer’s Agave in its concurrent reclamation plan.

3. Rosemont shall plant (transplanted or nursery grown stock) at least 35,850 Palmer 

Agaves as outlined in Table 1 of WestLand (2012b). The average density of plantings as 

proposed is 10.3 per acre. A record of the agave transplanted and planted from nurserygrown stock during concurrent reclamation efforts and the general location and density of 

transplants shall be maintained and reported to the Biological Monitor and in the Annual 

Report.

3.1 Rosemont shall include Palmer’s Agave seed in its seed mix provided such seed are 

commercially available. 
60

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

3.2 Rosemont shall conduct a scientifically designed study to document the efficacy of 

seasonal grazing restrictions to enhance agave flowering success. The study shall be 

implemented annually for five years following approval of the AMP and implementation 

of grazing management practices. 

4. During the sixth year of implementation of conservation measures Rosemont, FWS, and 

the Biological Monitor will evaluate the success of these conservation measures. If 

warranted, appropriate adaptive management actions will be developed by the Biological 

Monitor, FWS and Rosemont. 

5. Rosemont will monitor the Helena Mine complex and Adit R2 plus any newly discovered 

large LLNB roost sites (>100 bats) within 1 mile of the Perimeter Fence annually for 

LLNB. (Note if the mine feature is not controlled by Rosemont or if for any other reason 

access cannot be obtained by the Biological Monitor this monitoring obligation shall not 

apply.) 

6.1 Monitoring of each site shall be conducted three times during the late summer LLNB 

survey period – July, August and September. One of the surveys during the survey 

season at the Helena Mine will be scheduled to coincide with the region wide count. 

6.2 Monitoring of Helena Mine complex, Adit R2, and other Large LLNB Roost Sites shall 

be conducted annually until five years after mine closure. Monitoring surveys area 

anticipated to commence beginning in 2013. 

6.3 Surveys shall be conducted by evening emergence counts. Infrared tape recordings of the 

exit shall be recorded during each survey. The number of cameras used to capture 

emergence on tape will be sufficient to fully document monitored emergence events. 

Digital copies of the recordings will be provided to the Biological Monitor. The exit 

counts will be reported in the Annual Report. 

6.4 Monitored roost sites shall not be entered, except as authorized by the Biological Monitor 

in coordination with FWS. 

6.5 Rosemont shall provide a brief tabular summary of monitoring results to the Biological 

Monitor within two working days of each monitoring effort. 

7. Rosemont will conduct reconnaissance-level surveys of other known cave and mine 

features capable of supporting bats within in the perimeter fence and within 1 mile of the 

perimeter fence for LLNB and other bat species. 

7.1 Reconnaissance-level surveys shall be conducted on other known cave and mine features 

capable of support LLNB or other bats that have only minor numbers of LLNB (<100). 

7.2 Reconnaissance-level surveys shall consist of one visit to each monitored feature during 

the late summer (July through September). 

7.3 Reconnaissance-level surveys of these other known caves and mine features shall be 

conducted annually for the life of the Project and for five years following closure. 

7.4 Features known or suspected to have minor numbers of LLNB (<100) will be monitored 

by external exit count or other remote sensing method approved by the Biological 

Monitor.
61

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

7.5 Caves or mine features suspected to be occupied by LLNB shall not be entered. Caves or 

mine features that are not suspected to have LLNB may be entered, if determined safe, or 

may be monitored by external exit count, placement of IR cameras, or other suitable 

means. 

7.6 Rosemont shall provide a brief tabular summary of reconnaissance-level survey results to 

the Biological Monitor within 10 working days of completion of the reconnaissance 

surveys. 

8. Rosemont will close 20 mine features, including the Chicago Mine prior to Project 

construction (WestLand 2012b). If other sites are identified by Rosemont in proximity to 

the Project that may require closure for safety purposes, Rosemont will coordinate with 

the Biological Monitor. The mine and cave closure process is described in WestLand 

(2012b). Basically, the site is surveyed for bats or other species, and then closed with 

chicken wire (to allow bats to escape and not re-enter). Prior to exclusion, Rosemont will 

notify the Biological Monitor. 

9. Following construction of the mine and during the initial year of operation, Rosemont 

shall work with the Biological Monitor to review the efficacy of light mitigation 

measures at key resource areas around the mine, such as the Helena Mine, as identified 

by the Biological Monitor. If additional shielding can be placed to further reduce lighting 

effects without adverse consequences to safety and unreasonable operational 

expectations, Rosemont shall implement the additional requested shielding in a manner 

consistent with safe mining practices. 

10. Fence the R2 Mine and Helena Mine complex to exclude unauthorized human access. 

Fence construction shall be as described in Rosemont’s summary of the conservation 

measures. If during the life of the Project any new major roost sites (greater than 100 

LLNB at peak count) are detected within one mile of the perimeter fence it will be fenced 

or otherwise protected from unauthorized human access in a manner approved by the 

Biological Monitor. 

11. During the life of the Project Rosemont shall work with the Biological Monitor to 

identify potential restoration areas outside of the security fence and within 2 miles of the 

perimeter fence that are suitable for Palmer’s Agave. Using the seed mix being used for 

concurrent reclamation programs where appropriate, Rosemont will assist the Coronado 

National Forest with the revegetation of these areas. In addition to seeding, revegetation 

efforts will include planting Palmer’s Agave transplants or nursery-grown Palmer’s 

Agave. This effort will include portions of the old Arizona Trail being abandoned as part 

of these conservation measures. 

12. Rosemont shall work with the Coronado National Forest to relocate the Arizona Trail 

away from the Helena Mine complex. 
62

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

L. Pima Pineapple Cactus 

1. Conservation measures included in sections for Helvetia Ranch Annex North Parcels are 

incorporated here by reference. 

2. Construction practices along the proposed utility corridors will be employed to keep 

surface disturbance to the minimum practicable and to avoid Pima Pineapple cactus. 

2.1. Before ground disturbance, the utility corridor routes will be surveyed. Known Pima 

Pineapple cactus localities will be flagged and to the extent possible will be avoided. 

2.2. Rosemont will protect Pima Pineapple cactus that can be avoided with clear limit fencing, 

and construction/reclamation activity in the vicinity of these plants will be monitored 

during construction. 

2.3. Educate construction personnel for the power and water line in the offsite utility corridor 

how to identify Pima Pineapple cactus and marking/avoidance methods. 

2.4. Pima Pineapple Cactus that cannot be avoided by utility construction/reclamation will be 

transplanted within the corridor into suitable habitat. A monitoring and maintenance 

program will be initiated to facilitate establishment that will follow similar previous 

efforts for Pima pineapple cactus transplantation and will involve watering for the first 

few months after transplant, followed by regular monitoring. 

M. Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo: 

1. Conservation measures included in sections for Sonoita Creek Ranch, Cienega Creek 

Watershed, Davidson Watershed Parcels, and Water Features and Grazing that benefit 

CLF are incorporated here by reference. 

2. Rosemont will survey for Yellow-billed Cuckoo (YBC) in those drainages in the Project 

Area that have potential habitat (e.g., Barrel Canyon, McCleary Canyon) before trees 

(including large mesquites) within the Perimeter Fence boundary are removed. 

2.1 Survey shall be accordance with the current approved protocol and (and have 

commenced). 

2.2 Survey shall be conducted within suitable habitat within undisturbed portions of the 

Perimeter Fence area annually for the first five years of mine operation. 

3. Should vegetation clearing be proposed during the YBC nesting season, Rosemont shall 

coordinate with the Biological Monitor and FWS prior to vegetation clearing in suitable 

YBC habitat. 

3.1 Vegetation clearing within 50 meters of an active YBC nest or the center of an active 

YBC territory shall not occur during the YBC nesting period. This conservation measure 

shall not restrict vegetation clearing for implementation of an approved Plan of Operation 

outside of the YBC nesting period. 
63

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Action Area 

Of greater relevance to section 7 consultation is the action area; which includes “all areas to be 

affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved 

in the action (50 CFR §402.02).” The proposed action will adversely affect seven animal and 

two plant species, each with differing life histories, habitat requirements, and distributions in the 

areas affected by the proposed action. Given that the proposed action has effects ranging from 

nearly immediate, direct losses of habitat in the mine’s footprint to subtle and longer-term 

hydrologic changes in distant sites, each species will be affected over a different temporal and 

spatial scale. 

The BA has defined the action area as the aforementioned project area plus a larger, surrounding 

area that may experience direct or indirect temporal and spatial impacts from the project. 

Temporally, the potential on-site and off-site impacts resulting from the proposed action 

encompass all the activities associated with construction, operation, reclamation, and postclosure activities. The action area for this analysis is based on: (1) the area of the mine footprint; 

(2) areas outside the mine footprint that may be affected by noise, dust, light pollution, and other 

mining activities; (3) all areas for which mining activity may affect groundwater and surface 

water; and (4) other areas outside the footprint that are related to mining activity, such as road 

modifications, power lines, and pipelines (i.e., connected or interrelated/ interdependent actions). 

Spatially, the action area totals approximately 146,153 acres, including the footprint of the Barrel 

and TEP powerline. The action area is located primarily in Pima County but also encompasses a 

small portion of Santa Cruz County; 65,291 acres are on Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) lands, and the remaining 80,934 acres within the action area consist 

primarily of land administered by the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), land owned by 

Pima County, and private land. Included in the BLM acreage within the action area, primarily as 

a result of expected groundwater drawdown impacts within Cienega Creek and Empire Gulch, is 

a large portion of Las Cienegas National Conservation Area (NCA). The larger action area was 

drawn to ensure that the impacts of vibration and noise, dust, artificial night lighting, 

groundwater drawdown, and surface water alteration on listed species and their critical habitat 

are considered. 

The action area includes vegetation communities, surface water drainages, and on-site physical 

and topographic features (e.g., mountains, caves and mine adits/shafts, seeps and springs, stock 

tanks, rocky outcrops, etc.) that may be directly affected by the proposed action. The action area 

also includes the indirect downgradient effects on the surface water and groundwater 

environments that would result from the on-site diversion and impoundment of surface water; the 

indirect effects on springs and seeps surrounding the proposed action area; and the indirect 

effects of noise, dust, and light resulting from mining and transportation activities. Therefore, 

the action area includes the following: (1) drainages that receive surface water discharge from 

the mine site, including Davidson Canyon Wash past its confluence with Cienega Creek to 

Pantano Dam; (2) springs and seeps within the area of projected groundwater drawdown 

associated with the mine pit, including Empire Gulch and Cienega Creek, which contain BLM-
64

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

administered wetlands; and (3) areas adjacent to the mine site and transportation corridors that 

may be impacted by vibration, noise, dust, and artificial night lighting. The temporal analysis 

period includes 24 hours of light and noise for 25 to 30 years and the potential for groundwater 

drawdown for up to 1,000 years after closure of the mine. Impacts to downstream water quality 

would occur as a result of runoff from tailings and waste rock piles, and disruption of surface 

water flow would result from the capture of runoff in the pit. Downstream impacts to water 

quality and/or disruption of surface water flow resulting from the capture of runoff in the pit are 

only expected to occur along the Barrel Canyon drainage and through Davidson Canyon to its 

confluence with Cienega Creek. 

Land Ownership and Surrounding Land Uses 

The action area is a combination of Federal, state, county and private lands, totaling 

approximately 146,153 acres. The land immediately surrounding the proposed action includes 

National Forest System land, Public Land administered by the BLM, State Trust land, and 

private land. Land use in the vicinity of the proposed action primarily consists of mining, 

livestock grazing, and dispersed recreation. Sporadic prospecting reportedly began in the 

northwestern portion of the proposed action area, the Helvetia mining district, sometime in the 

mid-1800s. By the 1880s, the production from mines on both sides of the northern Santa Rita 

Mountains was supporting the construction and operation of the Columbia smelter at Helvetia on 

the west side of the Santa Rita Mountains and the Rosemont smelter in the Rosemont mining 

district on the east side of the Santa Rita Mountains. Since copper production ceased in 1951, 

the area stretching from the Peach-Elgin prospect to Rosemont has seen a progression of 

exploration campaigns. The majority of the land surrounding the proposed action area is 

currently under permit for livestock grazing. Current rangeland conditions on the district are 

largely the result of recent drought conditions and an older history of intense grazing pressure 

that resulted in severe erosion, including arroyo cutting. Recreation activities on lands within 

and adjacent to the proposed action area include casual or dispersed uses, as well as organized 

events. Typical recreation activities in the proposed action area consist of motorized vehicle 

touring (including off-highway vehicle use), dispersed camping, wildlife observation, nature 

study, bird watching, recreational prospecting, hunting, rock and mineral collection, picnicking, 

mountain biking, hiking, and horseback riding. 

Local and Regional Climate 

The climate in the action area is semiarid, with precipitation varying by season and with 

elevation. The 30-year normal (1971 to 2000) annual average precipitation for the Santa Rita 

Experimental Range station (approximately 5 miles northwest of the project area) is 23.41 inches 

(Western Regional Climate Center 2009). Over this 30-year period, nearly one-half of the 

precipitation occurred in July, August, and September. The smallest amount of precipitation 

occurred in April, May, and June. 

Temperatures regionally are moderate to extreme, with maximums and minimums also varying 

with elevation. The 30-year normal average monthly maximum temperatures at the Santa Rita 

Experimental Range station ranged from a low of 60.4 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in January to a 
65

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

high of 93.3°F in June. Average monthly minimum temperatures ranged from a low of 37.5°F in 

December and January to a high of 66.8°F in July. A climatological summary appears in Table 

27 of the Draft EIS. 

Biophysical Features 

The action area ranges in elevation from approximately 2,740 to 6,610 feet above mean sea level. 

The topography is dominated by rolling to steep hills, drainages, and canyons. The Santa Rita 

Mountain range includes numerous drainages that contain riparian vegetation. Barrel Canyon is 

the principal drainage system within the action area (see Figure A-1). Wasp, McCleary, and 

Scholefield Canyons discharge to Barrel Canyon, which discharges to Davidson Canyon and 

then to Cienega Creek in the northeastern portion of the action area (see Figure A-1). Empire 

Gulch and Gardner Canyon discharge into upper Cienega Creek in the southeastern portion of 

the action area. The northwest side of the action area is drained by a series of unnamed 

headwater tributaries of Sycamore Canyon. Box Canyon is the major drainage system within the 

southwestern portion of the action area, west of the main ridgeline. There are 95 springs and 

seeps (i.e., areas where there is moist soil or lotic or lentic surface water systems) and 148 stock 

tanks in the action area (Figure 3 in the June 2012 BA). Two springs in the action area were 

identified as being associated with wetlands: Scholefield Spring, located on a tributary to 

Scholefield Canyon; and Fig Tree Spring, a developed spring near the head of a minor unnamed 

tributary to Sycamore Canyon (WestLand 2010a, as cited in the BA). The aforementioned water 

sources provide habitat for aquatic plant and animal species within the action area. Previous 

mining activity has resulted in a number of mine adits and shafts within the action area (Figure 4 

in the June 2012 BA); mine adits and shafts provide roosting habitat for bats and other wildlife 

species (WestLand 2009a).
66

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Figure I-3: Water resources within the Action Area of the Rosemont Mine project.
67

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Vegetation Communities 

Uplands 

The action area is located in three upland vegetation communities: semidesert grassland, 

Madrean evergreen woodland, and Chihuahuan desertscrub (Brown 1994) (see Figure I-4). 

Semidesert grassland, characterized by open grasslands with widely scattered shrubs and cacti, 

generally covers the lower elevations of the action area. Madrean evergreen woodland mostly 

covers the higher elevations of the action area, generally in the western and southern areas, and is 

characterized by open woodlands or savanna, primarily consisting of trees interspersed with 

grasses and forbs. Chihuahuan desertscrub is dominated by the shrub, creosotebush (Larrea 

tridentata var. tridentata), on plains, low hills, and valleys on the uplands surrounding middle 

Cienega Creek. 

Semidesert Grassland 

There is a total of approximately 94,797 acres of the semidesert grassland vegetation community 

in the action area. In the semidesert grassland vegetation type, composition, and density varies 

with geographic location, precipitation, and topography. Some areas within this vegetation 

community are nearly barren with an abundance of sand, rock, gravel, scree, or talus, while other 

areas may have sparse to dense vegetation cover that includes succulent species, grasses, shrubs, 

scattered trees, and some herbaceous cover (Brown 1994; Forest Service 2009b, as cited in the 

BA, USFS 2013d). Within the action area, semidesert grassland is characterized by grasses 

interspersed with a variety of low-growing trees, shrubs, and cacti, including whitethorn acacia 

(Acacia constricta), catlaw acacia (A. greggii), prickly-pear cactus (Opuntia spp.), cholla 

(Cylindropuntia spp.), soaptree yucca (Yucca elata), beargrass (Nolina microcarpa), desert 

spoon (Dasylirion wheeleri), and agave (principally Agave schottii and A. palmeri). Native 

grass species include black grama (Bouteloua eriopoda), blue grama (B. gracilis), sideoats 

grama (B. curtipendula), hairy grama (B. hirsuta), buffalo grass (B. dactyloides), plains 

lovegrass (Eragrostis intermedia), little bluestem (Schizachyrium cirratum), plains bristlegrass 

(Setaria machrostachya), fluffgrass (Dasyochloa pulchella), burrograss (Scleropogon 

brevifolius), and slim tridens (Tridens muticus). The non-native Lehmann lovegrass (E. 

lehmanniana) is one of the more abundant nonnative grass species semidesert grassland portions 

within the action area. 

Madrean Evergreen Woodland 

There is a total of approximately 27,274 acres of the Madrean evergreen woodland vegetation 

community mapped within the action area (Brown 1994; Forest Service 2009b, as cited in the 

BA, USFS 2013d). The Madrean evergreen woodland vegetation community occurs on 

foothills, canyons, bajadas, and plateaus between semidesert grasslands and montane conifer 

forests; however, in the action area, virtually all of the Madrean evergreen woodland (sensu 

Brown 1994, as cited in the BA) is the lower end, more appropriately termed Madrean encinal 

(oak) woodland, as opposed to the upper end, usually termed Madrean pine/oak woodland, and 

trees indicative of the Madrean pine/oak woodland are absent (McLaughlin and Van Asdall n.d. 
68

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

[1977], as cited in the BA). This community is dominated by evergreen oaks, and in the action 

area, common oak (Quercus arizonica). Other tree species present are alligator bark juniper 

(Juniperus deppeana), one-seed juniper (J. monsperma) species include Emory oak (Q. emoryi), 

Mexican blue oak (Q. oblongifolia), and Arizona white oak (Q. monosperma), velvet mesquite 

(Prosopis velutina), and Mexican pinyon (Pinus cembroides). All of the shrub and warm season 

grass species and other ground cover listed in the semidesert grassland section can also be found 

in areas dominated by the Madrean evergreen woodland vegetation community. 

Chihuahuan Desertscrub 

There is a total of approximately 1,976 acres of the Chihuahuan desertscrub vegetation 

community in the action area. Chihuahuan desertscrub is limited to uplands in the vicinity of 

Cienega Creek within the action area (Brown 1994). The action area is within the Mexican 

Highlands Ecoregion, the Chihuahuan Desert influences this ecoregion, and McLaughlin and 

Van Asdall (1977) noted that Chihuahuan desertscrub vegetation components are present in the 

mine site area. Shrubs such as creosotebush and whitethorn acacia dominate the Chihuahuan 

desertscrub vegetation community. Other vegetation in this community includes very large 

yucca (Yucca spp.), which grow among grasses (mostly Bouteloua spp.) or scattered shrubs [e.g., 

desert zinnia (Zinnia acerosa) and condalia (Condalia sp.)], agave (Agave spp.), ocotillo 

(Fouquieria splendens), jatropha (Jatropha sp.), and scattered cacti. 

Sonoran Desertscrub 

Sonoran desertscrub is located at the periphery of the action area, using the coarse-scale mapping 

of Brown (Brown 1994). Locally, Sonoran desertscrub, or components of its vegetative 

community, are is present in lower Davidson Canyon, lower Cienega Creek, and in the northwest 

portion of the action area; however, the Sonoran Desertscrub biotic elements are often ecotonal 

with the other upland habitat types. There is also a small extent of Sonoran desertscrub 

vegetation outside of semidesert grassland at the far western terminus of the water and utility 

ROW. The conspicuous vegetation of the Arizona Upland subdivision of the Sonoran Desert 

includes saguaro (Carnegiea gigantea), palo verdes (Parkinsonia spp.), creosotebush, and 

numerous species of cacti, such as chain fruit cholla (Cylindropuntia fulgida), and Engelmann 

prickly pear (Opuntia phaeocantha var. phaeocantha). Birds are often associated with (e.g., 

nest in) the saguaro and cholla cacti, as well as palo verdes. 

Riparian 

The word “riparian” is used to describe plant communities associated with natural washes, rivers, 

ponds, and springs. Riparian plant associations occur along a continuum of available soil 

moisture, and regulatory agencies and researchers have consequently developed numerous and 

varied definitions of riparian (WestLand Resources Inc. 2010c). Some definitions relate directly 

to the nature of the water supply (e.g., perennial streams only); others relate to the condition and 

nature of the habitats associated with the watercourse (e.g., vegetation location, density, and 

composition), and still others use definitions that incorporate varied combinations of these 

factors (WestLand Resources Inc. 2010c). Riparian ecosystems provide habitat for 
69

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

approximately one-third of the plant species in western North America, and approximately 60 

percent of vertebrate species and 70 percent of threatened and endangered species in the arid 

Southwest are riparian obligates (Poff et al. 2011). These ecosystems provide essential 

ecological functions and are unique because species diversity, density, and productivity are high 

in these areas. 

There are a total of approximately 22,106 acres of riparian vegetation in the analysis area. These 

vegetation communities are present in drainages within the analysis area and along downstream 

portions of Box, McCleary, Sycamore, Scholefield, Wasp, Barrel, Davidson, and Gardner 

Canyons; Empire Gulch; and Cienega Creek. In addition to the riparian vegetation listed below 

as occurring in riparian areas in the analysis area, Emory oak, Mexican blue oak, and Arizona 

white oak are common in Box, McCleary, Sycamore, Scholefield, Wasp, and Barrel Canyons. 

While many springs support some individuals of species considered to indicate hydroriparian 

habitat, only two springs had large mappable areas of hydroriparian vegetation: Scholefield No. 

1 spring supports about 0.3 acre of wetland, and Fig Tree spring supports about 0.5 acre of 

riparian habitat, with a very limited wetland area. These water sources provide habitat for aquatic 

species within the analysis area. Pima County’s riparian mapping source is used for this project, 

and the following riparian habitat types are mapped within the analysis area (Pima County 2013). 

Hydroriparian 

Hydroriparian habitats are generally associated with perennial watercourses and/or springs. Plant 

communities are dominated by obligate or preferential wetland plant species such as Goodding’s 

willow (Salix gooddingii) and Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) and also include velvet 

ash (Fraxinus velutina), seep willow (Baccharis salicifolia), Arizona walnut (Juglans major), 

tamarisk (Tamarisk spp.), and mesquite. The cottonwood/willow forest is a typical example of 

this habitat type. The following drainages and associated riparian habitat contain stretches that 

are mapped as hydroriparian: Cienega Creek, Gardner Canyon, Empire Gulch, Davidson 

Canyon, and Barrel Canyon. Approximately 7,325 acres of hydroriparian habitat are located 

within the analysis area. 

Aquatic vegetation that is unique to the springs and seeps is present within the analysis area. 

Vegetation at these springs and seeps includes obligate wetland plants (i.e., almost always occur 

under natural conditions in wetlands) such as seep monkey flower (Mimulus guttatus) and water 

speedwell (Veronica anagallis-aquatica), along with facultative wetland plants (i.e., usually 

occur in wetlands, but occasionally found in nonwetlands) such as smooth horsetail (Equisetum

laevigatum) and Arizona giant sedge (Carex spissa var. ultra) (which is likely a facultative 

wetland plant). Other riparian plant species documented at springs and seeps in the analysis area 

include sycamore (Plantanus wrightii), willow (Salix spp.), netleaf hackberry (Celtis reticulata), 

and deergrass (Muhlenbergia rigens). Within the analysis area, moist soil or surface water (both 

lentic and lotic systems) and associated aquatic vegetation are known to occur at the several 

springs (e.g., Deering, Upper Empire Gulch, Fig Tree, Mudhole, Oak, Ojo Blanco, Rosemont, 

Scholefield No. 1, Sycamore, and Water Develop) (WestLand Resources Inc. 2011j). Areas of 

aquatic habitats are too small to map; therefore, they do not appear on Figure I-4, below. 
70

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Xeroriparian 

Xeroriparian habitats are generally associated with an ephemeral water supply. These 

communities typically contain plant species also found in upland habitats; however, these plants 

are typically larger and/or occur at higher densities than adjacent uplands. Approximately 14,781 

acres of xeroriparian habitat are located within the analysis area. Xeroriparian habitat is further 

divided into four subclasses to reflect the amount of vegetation present. Pima County Regional 

Flood Control District’s Regulated Riparian Habitat Mitigation Standards and Implementation 

Guidelines (Pima County Department of Transportation and Flood Control District 2001; Pima 

County Regional Flood Control District 2011) define the xeroriparian subcategories as follows: 

• Xeroriparian A: The most dense xeroriparian subcategory with a total vegetative volume 

greater than 0.856 m3/m2. Xeroriparian A habitat is present in stretches of Cienega Creek, 

Empire Gulch, and Davidson Canyon where vegetation consists of mesquite and netleaf 

hackberry. Approximately 145 acres of xeroriparian A habitat is located within the analysis area. 

• Xeroriparian B: Moderately dense xeroriparian subcategory with a total vegetative volume less 

than or equal to 0.856 m3/m2

and greater than 0.675 m3/m2. Xeroriparian B habitat is present in 

stretches of Cienega Creek, Gardner Canyon, Empire Gulch, Davidson Canyon, and Barrel 

Canyon where vegetation consists of mesquite, scattered cottonwood, netleaf hackberry, 

burrobrush (Hymenoclea monogrya), juniper (Juniperus sp.), and acacia (Acacia sp.). 

Approximately 7,116 acres of xeroriparian B habitat is located within the analysis area. 

• Xeroriparian C: Less dense xeroriparian subcategory with a total vegetative volume less than or 

equal to 0.675 m3/m2

and greater than 0.500 m3/m2. Xeroriparian C habitat is present in stretches 

of Cienega Creek, Gardner Canyon, Empire Gulch, and Davidson Canyon where vegetation 

consists of mesquite, desert broom (Baccharis sarothroides), burrobush, desert willow (Chilopsis

linearis), hackberry (Celtis sp.), and juniper. Approximately 7,345 acres of xeroriparian C 

habitat is located within the analysis area. 

• Xeroriparian D: Less to sparse plant density xeroriparian subcategory that provides hydrologic 

connectivity to other riparian habitat areas with a total vegetative volume less than or equal to 

0.500 m3

/m2. Xeroriparian D habitat is present in stretches of Cienega Creek and Davidson 

Canyon where vegetation consists of acacia and desert broom. Approximately 174 acres of 

xeroriparian D habitat is located within the analysis area. 

Aquatic Vegetation 

Aquatic vegetation is unique to the springs and seeps within the action area and includes obligate 

wetland plants (i.e., almost always occurs under natural conditions in wetlands) such as seep 

monkey flower (Mimulus guttatus) and water speedwell (Veronica anagallis-aquatica), along 

with facultative wetland plants (i.e., usually occur in wetlands, but occasionally found in nonwetlands) such as smooth horsetail (Equisetum laevigatum) and Arizona giant sedge (Carex 

spissa var. ultra) (which is likely a facultative wetland plant). Other riparian plant species 

documented at springs and seeps in the action area include sycamore (Plantanus wrightii), 
71

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

willow (Salix spp.), netleaf hackberry, and deergrass (Muhlenbergia rigens). Within the action 

area, moist soil or surface water (both lentic and lotic systems) and associated aquatic vegetation 

are known to occur at the following springs (WestLand 2011a): Basin, Deering, Empire Gulch, 

Fig Tree, Mudhole, Oak, Ojo Blanco, Rosemont, Scholefield, Sycamore, and Water Develop. 

Information provided by the BLM during the review of the draft version of the BO notes that 

these aquatic vegetation communities, along with those present along cienega-like reaches of 

Cienega Creek and its tributaries should be classified as Interior (Sonoran) Marshland (Brown 

1982). These Cienega communities (Minckley and Brown 1982, Hendrickson and Minckley 

1984) are prevalent in the Las Cienegas NCA; the area contains over 30 jurisdictional wetlands, 

both perennial and seasonal. Most of these wetlands occur on the Cienega Creek floodplain 

between Cinco Canyon and Oak Tree Canyon. Named wetland complexes include Cieneguita 

Wetland, Spring Water Wetland, Cinco Ponds Wetland. Another series of wetlands occurs 

upstream of the Mattie Canyon confluence on Cienega Creek (Cold Spring Wetland). These 

wetlands cover tens of acres. An inventory of wetlands has been completed by the Arizona 

Botanical Garden with a report anticipated to be transmitted in September 2013. 

Areas of aquatic habitats were considered too small to map by USFS; therefore, they do not 

appear on Figure I-4, below. The BLM, in comments on the content of the Draft BO, stated that 

Cienaga Cienega Creek exhibits approximately 7 miles of surface flow. In addition, Empire 

Gulch has approximately 0.5 mile, Empire Spring approximately 1,000 feet, and Mattie Canyon 

approximately 1 mile. The BLM also stated that large blocks of wetland also occur which could 

easily be delineated on a map. We note that aquatic habitat in the context of this section refers to 

vegetative communities, not solely wetted areas. While we agree that mapping cold be 

improved, it is likely that the aquatic vegetative community mapping was superseded by 

mapping of the dominant overstory (i.e. xerioriparian or hydroriparian) that may co-occur with 

the understory of Interior Marshland in many sites.
72

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Figure I-4: Vegetation communities within the Action Area for the Rosemont Mine project
73

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Existing Disturbances 

Previous mineral exploration and production activities in the proposed action area have resulted 

in numerous landscape disturbances, such as mine prospects and adits, mine related access roads, 

and geotechnical drilling sites, that potentially contribute to current light levels in the night sky 

and fugitive dust. These disturbances are scattered throughout the proposed action area. 

Additional anthropogenic disturbances have resulted from livestock grazing and all-terrain 

vehicle (ATV) use. Past wildfires have also affected biological resources in the analysis area: 

since 1989 there have been 27 fires larger than 10 acres, totaling approximately 49,321 acres. 

Fires kill vegetation and wildlife to a varying degree, depending on the severity and intensity of 

the fire, and the recovery can take up to decades, depending on the pre-fire vegetation 

community and the severity and intensity of the fire. Within and adjacent to the action area, 

there are numerous wells in the Sonoita area that support residential and ranching uses and 

contribute to groundwater drawdown in the analysis area. 

Historic Mining Activities 

Helvetia was the largest mining camp of the Helvetia district, followed by Old Rosemont, New 

Rosemont, and smaller mining camps established at the “Tiptop, Blue Jay, Proctor and Deering, 

Beuhman, Cuprite, Pauline, Metallic, Helena, Scholefield and Ridley mines” (Ayres 1984, as 

cited in the BA). The major era of mining at Rosemont was 1879 to 1915, although Old 

Rosemont was most active from 1894 to 1915, and New Rosemont was most active from 1915 to 

1921.

Ranching and Grazing 

Livestock grazing has been an ongoing disturbance in and around the footprint of the proposed 

mine for over 100 years—historically at much higher levels than at present. One of the earliest 

ranches in the proposed action area was the VR Ranch, which was established in the 1880s and 

later homesteaded. By about 1900, the López and Martínez ranches were in operation, but 

neither of these was homesteaded. In 1903–1904, when the 1905 Patagonia USGS quadrangle 

map was surveyed, there were three ranches within the proposed action area: López, Martínez, 

and VR. With the establishment of the Santa Rita Forest Preserve in 1902 and the Coronado 

National Forest in 1908 (Ayres 1984), the federal government began to require permits to graze 

cattle on federal land. Smaller ranchers, such as the Lópezes and the Martínezes, were allowed 

to graze a few head without permits. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 established a system of 

grazing allotments for public lands. Most of the project area lies within the Rosemont grazing 

allotment, which was established in 1935 and covers 11,369 acres. From 1938 to 1951, this 

allotment was leased by Chiricahua Ranches. Rosemont holds term grazing permits on four 

allotments: Rosemont, Thurber, Greaterville, and DeBaud. Rosemont plans to continue all 

current grazing activities as permitted throughout the course of the proposed action . 

Recent Geotechnical and Hydrologic Drilling 

In August 2006, Tetra Tech completed a geotechnical investigation on lands within the proposed 
74

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

action area in support of feasibility-level designs of a heap leach pad and associated ponds, drystack tailings facilities, plant site facilities, a waste rock storage area, and various water 

management facilities (Tetra Tech and Schafer 2007). Initial geotechnical site investigations 

were conducted between November 2006 and March 2007. A total of 10 boreholes and 33 test 

pits were completed during this initial phase of the work. The boreholes and test pits were 

confined to the limits of private land (patented claims and fee lands). 

On March 6, 2008, the Forest Service approved a proposal for preliminary mineral exploration 

for short-term geotechnical and hydrologic drilling and related activities on the Coronado 

National Forest. From May through July 2008, Tetra Tech completed a total of 19 boreholes at 

15 drill sites located on Forest Service land (Tetra Tech 2009b, as cited in the BA). Because of 

the restricted amount of ground disturbance allowed on Forest Service land, 13 of the 15 drill 

sites were located along existing dirt roads. Two new access roads were constructed in order to 

reach drill sites located within the plant site area and the footprint of the proposed primary 

crusher. In accordance with Forest Service instructions, all disturbed areas associated with the 

geotechnical drilling on Forest Service land was reclaimed (i.e., recontoured and seeded) within 

30 days of the completion of drilling, with the exception of boreholes that will be used for 

groundwater monitoring. Gating of new access roads and the permanent closure of access roads 

following the completion of drilling activities were also conditions stipulated by the Forest 

Service. 
75

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Figure I-5: Action Area for the Rosemont Mine project 
76

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Status of the Species - Lesser Long-Nosed Bat 

Species Description

The lesser long-nosed bat is a medium-sized, leaf-nosed bat. It has a long muzzle and a long 

tongue, and is capable of hover flight. These features are adaptations for feeding on nectar from 

the flowers of columnar cacti [e.g., saguaro (Carnegiea gigantea); cardon (Pachycereus 

pringlei); and organ pipe cactus (Stenocereus thurberi)]; and from paniculate agaves [e.g., 

Palmer's agave (Agave palmeri)] (Hoffmeister 1986). The lesser long-nosed bat was listed 

(originally, as Leptonycteris sanborni; Sanborn's long-nosed bat) as endangered in 1988 (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 1988). No critical habitat has been designated for this species. A 

recovery plan was completed in 1997 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997). Loss of roost and 

foraging habitat, as well as direct taking of individual bats during animal control programs, 

particularly in Mexico, have contributed to the current endangered status of the species. 

Recovery actions include roost monitoring, protection of roosts and foraging resources, and 

reducing existing and new threats. The recovery plan states that the species will be considered 

for delisting when three major maternity roosts and two post-maternity roosts in the U.S., and 

three maternity roosts in Mexico have remained stable or increased in size for at least five years, 

following the approval of the recovery plan. A five-year review has been completed and 

recommends downlisting to threatened (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007b). 

Distribution and Life History

The lesser long-nosed bat is migratory and found throughout its historical range, from southern 

Arizona and extreme southwestern New Mexico, through western Mexico, and south to El 

Salvador. It has been recorded in southern Arizona from the Picacho Mountains (Pinal County) 

southwest to the Agua Dulce Mountains (Pima County) and Copper Mountains (Yuma County), 

southeast to the Peloncillo Mountains (Cochise County), and south to the international boundary. 

Within the U.S., habitat types occupied by the lesser long-nosed bat include Sonoran Desert 

scrub, semi-desert and plains grasslands, and oak and pine-oak woodlands. Farther south, the 

lesser long-nosed bat occurs at higher elevations. Maternity roosts, suitable day roosts, and 

concentrations of food plants are all critical resources for the lesser long-nosed bat. All of the 

factors that make roost sites suitable have not yet been identified, but maternity roosts tend to be 

very warm and poorly ventilated (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997). Such roosts reduce the 

energetic requirements of adult females while they are raising their young (Arends et al. 1995). 

Roosts in Arizona are occupied from late April to September (Cockrum and Petryszyn 1991) and 

on occasion, as late as November (Sidner 2000); the lesser long-nosed bat has only rarely been 

recorded outside of this time period in Arizona (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997, 

Hoffmeister 1986, Sidner and Houser 1990). In spring, adult females, most of which are 

pregnant, arrive in Arizona and gather into maternity colonies in southwestern Arizona. These 

roosts are typically at low elevations near concentrations of flowering columnar cacti. After the 

young are weaned, these colonies mostly disband in July and August; some females and young 
77

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

move to higher elevations, primarily in the southeastern parts of Arizona near concentrations of 

blooming paniculate agaves. Adult males typically occupy separate roosts forming bachelor 

colonies. Males are known mostly from the Chiricahua Mountains and, recently, the Galiuro 

Mountains (personal communication with Tim Snow, Arizona Game and Fish Department, 

1999), but also occur with adult females and young of the year at maternity sites (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1997). Throughout the night between foraging bouts, both sexes will rest in 

temporary night roosts (Hoffmeister 1986). 

Lesser long-nosed bats appear to be opportunistic foragers and extremely efficient fliers. They 

are known to fly long distances from roost sites to foraging sites. Night flights from maternity 

colonies to foraging areas have been documented in Arizona at up to 25 miles, and in Mexico, at 

25 miles and 36 miles (one way) (Ober et al. 2000; Dalton et al. 1994, Ober and Steidl 2004, 

Lowery et al. 2009). Lowery et al. 2009 and Steidl (personal communication, 2001) found that 

typical one-way foraging distance for bats in southeastern Arizona is roughly 6 to 18 miles. A 

substantial portion of the lesser long-nosed bats at the Pinacate Cave in northwestern Sonora (a 

maternity colony) fly 25-31 miles each night to foraging areas in OPCNM (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1997). Horner et al. (1990) found that lesser long-nosed bats commuted 30-36 

miles round trip between an island maternity roost and the mainland in Sonora; the authors 

suggested these bats regularly flew at least 47 miles each night. Lesser long-nosed bats have 

been observed feeding at hummingbird feeders many miles from the closest known potential 

roost site (Lowery et al. 2009; personal communication with Yar Petryszyn, University of 

Arizona 1997). 

Lesser long-nosed bats, which often forage in flocks, consume nectar and pollen of paniculate 

agave flowers; and pollen and fruit produced by a variety of columnar cacti. Nectar of these 

cacti and agaves is high energy food. Concentrations of some food resources appear to be 

patchily distributed on the landscape, and the nectar of each plant species used is only seasonally 

available. Cacti flowers and fruit are available during the spring and early summer; blooming 

agaves are available primarily from July through October. In Arizona, columnar cacti occur in 

lower elevational areas of the Sonoran Desert region, and paniculate agaves are found primarily 

in higher elevation desert scrub areas, semi-desert grasslands and shrublands, and into the oak 

and pine-oak woodlands (Gentry 1982). Lesser long-nosed bats are important pollinators for 

agave and cacti, and are important seed dispersers for some cacti. 

The conservation and recovery of lesser long-nosed bats requires the presence of secure and 

appropriate roost sites throughout the landscape (including maternity roost sites, as well as 

transitional and migration roost sites) and adequate forage resources in appropriate juxtaposition 

to provide for life history needs including breeding, parturition, and migration. 

Status and Threats

Recent information indicates that lesser long-nosed bat populations appear to be increasing or 

stable at most Arizona roost sites identified in the recovery plan (Arizona Game and Fish 

Department 2005, Tibbitts 2005, Wolf and Dalton 2005, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007b; 

electronic mail from Tim Tibbitts 2009). Lesser long-nosed bat populations additionally appear 
78

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

to be increasing or stable at other roost sites in Arizona and Mexico not included for monitoring 

in the recovery plan (Sidner 2005, Arizona Game and Fish Department 2009). Less is known 

about lesser long-nosed bat numbers and roosts in New Mexico. Though lesser long-nosed bat 

populations appear to be doing well, many threats to their stability and recovery still exist, 

including excess harvesting of agaves in Mexico; collection and destruction of cacti in the U.S.; 

conversion of habitat for agricultural and livestock uses, including the introduction of 

bufflegrass, a non-native, invasive grass species; wood-cutting; alternative energy development 

(wind and solar power); illegal border activities and required law enforcement activities; drought 

and climate change; fires; human disturbance at roost sites; and urban development. 

Approximately 20 – 25 large lesser long-nosed bat roost sites, including maternity and latesummer roosts, have been documented in Arizona. Of these, 10 – 20 are monitored on an annual 

basis depending on available resources (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007b). Monitoring in 

Arizona in 2004 documented approximately 78,600 lesser long-nosed bats in late-summer roosts 

and approximately 34,600 in maternity roosts. More recently, in 2008, the numbers were 63,000 

at late-summer roosts and 49,700 at maternity roosts (Arizona Game and Fish Department 2009). 

Ten to 20 lesser long-nosed bat roost sites in Mexico are also monitored annually. Over 100,000 

lesser long-nosed bats are found at just one natural cave at the Pinacate Biosphere Reserve, 

Sonora, Mexico (Cockrum and Petryszyn 1991). The numbers above indicate that although a 

relatively large number of lesser long-nosed bats exist, the relative number of known large roosts 

is quite small. 

The primary threat to lesser long-nosed bat is roost disturbance or loss. The colonial roosting 

behavior of this species, where high percentages of the population can congregate at a limited 

number of roost sites, increases the risk of significant declines or extinction due to impacts at 

roost sites. Lesser long-nosed bats remain vulnerable because they are so highly aggregated 

(Nabhan and Fleming 1993). Some of the most significant threats known to lesser long-nosed 

bat roost sites are impacts resulting from use and occupancy of these roost sites by individuals 

crossing the border illegally for a number of reasons. Mines and caves, which provide roosts for 

lesser long-nosed bats, also provide shade, protection, and sometimes water, for border crossers. 

The types of impacts that result from illegal border activities include disturbance from human 

occupancy, lighting fires, direct mortality, accumulation of trash and other harmful materials, 

alteration of temperature and humidity, destruction of the roost itself, and the inability to carry 

out conservation and research activities related to lesser long-nosed bats. These effects can lead 

to harm, harassment, or, ultimately, roost abandonment (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). 

For example, the illegal activity, presumably by individuals crossing the border, at the Bluebird 

maternity roost site, caused bats to abandon the site in 2002, 2003, and 2005. Other reasons for 

disturbance or loss of bat roosts include the use of caves and mines for recreation; the deliberate 

destruction, defacing or damage of caves or mines; roost deterioration (including both buildings 

or mines); short or long-term impacts from fire; and mine closures for safety purposes. The 

presence of alternate roost sites may be critical when this type of disturbance occurs. 

In summary, threats to lesser long-nosed bat forage habitat include excess harvesting of agaves 

in Mexico; collection and destruction of cacti in the U.S.; conversion of habitat for agricultural 

and livestock uses; the introduction of bufflegrass and other invasive species that can carry fire 
79

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

in Sonoran Desert scrub; wood-cutting; urban development; fires; and drought and climate 

change. 

Large fires supported by invasive vegetation in 2005 affected some lesser long-nosed bat 

foraging habitat, though the extent is unknown. For example, the Goldwater, Aux, and Sand 

Tank Fire Complexes on Barry M. Goldwater Range-East burned through and around isolated 

patches of saguaros. Rogers (1985) showed that saguaros are not fire-adapted and suffer a high 

mortality rate as a result of fire. Therefore, fire can significantly affect forage resources for 

lesser long-nosed bats in the Sonoran desert. Monitoring of saguaro mortality rates should be 

done to assess the impacts on potential lesser long-nosed bat foraging habitat. More recently, the 

summer of 2011 saw huge wildfires burning across Arizona. The Wallow Fire (538,049 acres) 

set a new state record, burning a larger area than the 2002 Rodeo-Chediski Fire (468,638 acres). 

The Horseshoe 2 Fire (222,954 acres) burned approximately 70% of the Chiricahua Mountains 

and became the 4th largest fire in Arizona history. In addition to the Horseshoe 2 Fire, two other 

large wildfires (Murphy Complex and the Monument Fire) and numerous smaller fires burned a 

total of 366,679 acres in the Coronado National Forest. The Horseshoe 2, Monument, and 

Murphy fires affected lesser long-nosed bat forage and roost resources throughout those 

mountain ranges. Fire suppression activities associated with wildfires could also affect foraging 

habitat. For example, slurry drops can leave residue on saguaro flowers, which could impact 

lesser long-nosed bat feeding efficiency or result in minor contamination. 

Drought may affect lesser long-nosed bat foraging habitat, though the effects of drought on bats 

are not well understood. The drought in 2004 resulted in near complete flower failure in 

saguaros throughout the range of lesser long-nosed bats. During that time however, in lieu of 

saguaro flowers, lesser long-nosed bats foraged heavily on desert agave (Agave deserti) flowers, 

an agave species used less consistently by lesser long-nosed bats (Tibbitts 2006). Similarly, 

there was a failure of the agave bloom in southeastern Arizona in 2006, probably related to the 

ongoing drought. As a result, lesser long-nosed bats left some roosts earlier than normal and 

increased use of hummingbird feeders by lesser long-nosed bats was observed in the Tucson area 

(personal communication with Scott Richardson, FWS, January 11, 2008). Climate change 

impacts to the lesser long-nosed bats in this portion of its range likely include loss of forage 

resources. Of particular concern is the prediction that saguaros, the primary lesser long-nosed 

bat forage resource in the Sonoran Desert, will decrease or even disappear within the current 

extent of the Sonoran Desert as climate change progresses (Weiss and Overpeck 2005, p. 2074). 

Monitoring bats and their forage during drought years is needed to better understand the effects 

of drought on this species. 

The lesser long-nosed bat recovery plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997) identifies the 

need to protect roost habitats and foraging areas and food plants, such as columnar cacti and 

agaves. The lesser long-nosed bat recovery plan provides specific discussion and guidance for 

management and information needs regarding bat roosts and forage resources (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1997). More information regarding the average size of foraging areas around 

roosts would be helpful to identify the minimum area around roosts that should be protected to 

maintain adequate forage resources. 
80

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

We have produced numerous BOs on the lesser long-nosed bat since it was listed as endangered 

in 1988, some of which anticipated incidental take. Incidental take has been in the form of direct 

mortality and injury, harm, and harassment and has typically been only for a small number of 

individuals. Because incidental take of individual bats is difficult to detect, incidental take has 

often been quantified in terms of loss of forage resources, decreases in numbers of bats at roost 

sites, or increases in proposed action activities. 

Examples of more recent BOs that anticipated incidental take for lesser long-nosed bats are 

summarized below. The 2010 BO related to the National Park Service’s abandoned mine closure 

program, anticipated the direct take of up to 115 lesser long-nosed bats as a result of collisions 

with mine closure structures, and the abandonment of one roost site due to mine closure activities 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010). The 2009 and 2008 BOs for implementation of the 

SBInet Ajo 1 and Tucson West Projects, including the installation, operation, and maintenance 

of communication and sensor towers and other associated infrastructure, each included incidental 

take in the form of 10 bats caused by collisions with towers and wind turbine blade-strike 

mortality for the life (presumed indefinite) of the proposed action. The 2007 BO for the 

installation of one 600 kilowatt wind turbine and one 50KW mass megawatts wind machine on 

Fort Huachuca included incidental take in the form of 10 bats caused by blade-strikes for the life 

(presumed indefinite) of the proposed action (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007c). The 2005 

BO for implementation of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

(U.S. Forest Service) included incidental take in the form of harm or harassment. The amount 

of take for individual bats was not quantified; instead take was to be considered exceeded if 

simultaneous August counts (at transitory roosts in Arizona, New Mexico, and Sonora) drop 

below 66,923 lesser long-nosed bats (the lowest number from 2001 – 2004 counts) for a period 

of two consecutive years as a result of the action. The 2004 BO for the Bureau of Land 

Management Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality 

Management included incidental take in the form of harassment. The amount of incidental take 

was quantified in terms of loss of foraging resources, rather than loss of individual bats. The 

2003 BO for Marine Corps Air Station–Yuma Activities on the BMGR included incidental take 

in the form of direct mortality or injury (five bats every 10 years). Because take could not be 

monitored directly, it was to be considered exceeded if nocturnal low-level helicopter flights in 

certain areas on the BMGR increased significantly or if the numbers of bats in the Agua Dulce or 

Bluebird Mine roosts decreased significantly and MCAS-Yuma activities were an important 

cause of the decline. The 2007 BO for Department of the Army Activities at and near Fort 

Huachuca (Fort), Arizona anticipated incidental take in the form of direct mortality or injury (six 

bats over the life of the project), harassment (20 bats per year), and harm (10 bats over the life of 

the project) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007a). 

The lesser long-nosed bat recovery plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997), listing document 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1988), and the 5-year review summary and evaluation for the 

lesser long-nosed bat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007b), all discuss the status of the 

species, and threats, and are incorporated by reference. 
81

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Environmental Baseline - Lesser Long-Nosed Bat 

Action Area

As stated previously, the action area is defined as all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by 

the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR §402.02). 

The FWS has described above the general action area for the Rosemont Mine project (see Action 

Area section above). The action area as it relates specifically to the lesser long-nosed bat 

extends beyond this general action area and includes the areas directly impacted by the 

Rosemont mine features identified, including utility corridors and access roads, as well as the 

area defined by a circle with a radius of 36 miles (the maximum documented one-way foraging 

distance of the lesser long-nosed bat) around the Rosemont Mine project. Lesser long-nosed bats 

may occur anywhere within this foraging radius around roosts occupied by lesser long-nosed 

bats during the time of annual occupancy in the area. The action area represents only a small 

portion of the lesser long-nosed bat’s range. However, using this definition increases the number 

of lesser long-nosed bat roosts in the action area from three, as described in the various BAs, to 

13, which includes 10 lesser long-nosed bat roosts in the Santa Rita, Empire, Mustang, 

Whetstone, Patagonia, Rincon and Santa Catalina mountains that are within 36 miles of the 

proposed Rosemont Mine project. 

The above description of the action area for lesser long-nosed bats is supplemented by the 

overall description of the action area used earlier in this document (see Action Area section 

above) with regard to land management and vegetation community description. 

Status of the Lesser Long-Nosed Bat in the Action Area 

Bat surveys of the proposed action area and vicinity were conducted in 2008 (WestLand 2009f), 

2009 (Buecher et al. 2010), 2010 (Buecher et al. 2011), and 2011 (WestLand 2011f). Methods 

included active and passive ultrasonic acoustic sampling at flowering agaves, infrared 

photography and observations of flowering agaves, and surveys of potential roost sites. 

In 2008, 143 potential bat roost sites (i.e., caves, mine shafts, and adits) were evaluated within 

the action area and surrounding region (WestLand 2009f). Of these 143 sites, 59 were within the 

proposed action footprint, and 16 were near the proposed action footprint. Acoustic and/or roost 

site surveys were conducted on a total of 20 different dates between August 4 and November 12, 

2008, and ultrasonic acoustic surveys and infrared surveys were conducted on five evenings 

between August 11 and September 16, 2008. Because lesser long-nosed bats often remain silent 

while foraging, several sites also were monitored in 2008 with night vision equipment to further 

document use of flowering agaves. Lesser long-nosed bats were documented foraging regularly 

on agaves in the proposed action area from late August to mid-September based on the results of 

acoustic and infrared surveys. Lesser long-nosed bat calls were recorded at 23 of the 27 Palmer 

agave sites where acoustic surveys were successful (i.e., no equipment failures), and night vision 

equipment was successful in detecting frequent lesser long-nosed bat visits to flowering Palmer 

agaves. Lesser long-nosed bats were documented roosting at three sites within the action area in 
82

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

2008: Site 9 (the name was changed to Chicago Mine in Buecher et al. 2010), Site R-2, and the 

Helena Mine complex (Figure LLB-1). The Chicago Mine was visited five separate times during 

2008; approximately 12 to 15 lesser long-nosed bats were present in August, and none were 

present in late September. The R-2 site was visited once in 2008, which resulted in the 

confirmed sighting of one lesser long-nosed bat. A small colony of 20 to 30 lesser long-nosed 

bats was roosting at the Helena Mine complex in 2008. Only one of these sites (Site 9/Chicago 

Mine) is within the proposed action footprint and is located within the proposed mine pit. Site 

R-2 is immediately adjacent to the southwestern portion of the proposed fence line of the Barrel 

alternative. Lesser long-nosed bats also were found at the Helena Mine complex approximately 

1 mile north-northeast of the fence line for the Barrel alternative. 

In 2009, 37 sites were examined during eight field visits conducted in August, September, and 

October (Buecher et al. 2010). Survey efforts in 2009 focused on sites that supported nectarfeeding bats in 2008 and sites where the potential for bats was considered high, including the 

following: 1) the Helena Mine complex, which is characterized by multiple entrances, supported 

small numbers of L. yerbabuenae in 2008; 2) Adit S and Adit R-47, where accumulations of 

insectivorous bat guano was found in 2008; 3) R-46, which was not visited in 2009 but was 

thought to have high potential for bat use; 4) Chicago Mine (referred to as Site 9 in WestLand 

2009f), which supported small numbers of Leptonycteris in 2008; and 5) R-2 (located in 

Sycamore Canyon), where one L. yerbabuenae was found in 2008. Lesser long-nosed bats were 

documented at the same three roosts at which they were detected in 2008 (see LLB-1, below). 

The Chicago Mine was visited two times in 2009, and approximately 32 lesser long-nosed bats 

were documented exiting the mine. The R-2 site was visited three times in 2009. This resulted 

in a single lesser long-nosed bat observed on August 25, 2009, more than 50 detected with 

acoustic sampling and infrared video cameras on September 3, 2009, and the presence of lesser 

long-nosed bats on October 13, 2009. At the Helena Mine complex, more than 5,000 lesser 

long-nosed bats were detected during an exit count in September. 

In 2010, three of the sites that were previously surveyed, including one site that contained lesser 

long-nosed bats in 2008 and 2009 (Helena Mine complex), were revisited (Buecher et al. 2011). 

Additionally, the BLM conducted surveys on their lands near Helvetia late in 2010, and lesser 

long-nosed bats were observed roosting on abandoned mine land features (Hughes 2011). Lesser 

long-nosed bats were documented roosting only at the Helena Mine complex site; however, the 

Chicago Mine and R-2 sites were not surveyed. Significantly fewer (approximately 150) lesser 

long-nosed bats were detected overall during exit counts in 2010 than in 2009 (more than 5,000). 

However, some of the emergence counts were stopped early because of inclement weather, so it 

is unclear whether the reduced counts were accurate representations of the number of bats at 

these roost locations. 
83

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Figure LLB-1: Lesser Long-Nosed Bat roosts in the Action Area of the Rosemont Mine project
84

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

In 2011, 33 sites were examined in 10 field visits in July, August, and September (WestLand 

2011f). Some sites surveyed were used by bats in previous years, and additional mines not 

covered during prior surveys were also evaluated. Evaluations included mine entry (internal 

surveys) and/or external roost evaluations (emergence surveys). Lesser long-nosed bats were 

documented roosting at the Helena Mine complex site, the Chicago Mine, and R-2 sites (see 

Figure LLB-1 below). At the Helena Mine complex, approximately 4,650 lesser long-nosed bats 

were detected during an exit count in August; during a second emergence count in September, 

approximately 2,021 Lesser Long-nosed Bats were recorded. At the Chicago Mine, one lesser 

long-nosed bat was detected roosting in July. At the R-2 site, three lesser long-nosed bats were 

detected roosting in July. 

Regional monitoring of lesser long-nosed bats occurs in the vicinity of the Rosemont Mine 

project, including mountain ranges within 36 miles (maximum documented foraging distance for 

lesser long-nosed bats) of the Rosemont Mine project. Based on this regional monitoring data, 

10 additional lesser long-nosed bat roosts occur within 36 miles of the Rosemont mine site. Bats 

from these roost sites potentially visit the Rosemont Mine area to forage on available agave 

plants. The number of lesser long-nosed bats using these additional roosts is generally from 

1,000 – 12,000 bats. While it is unlikely that all of the lesser long-nosed bats from these roosts 

will use the Rosemont Mine area for foraging, it is likely that, in any given year, some of the bats 

from these roost sites will forage in the area of the Rosemont Mine. 

In summary, the action area is located in the post-maternity dispersal region for lesser longnosed bat (maternity colonies in southwestern Arizona disband in July and August), and there are 

numerous Palmer agaves and at least thirteen active roosts within the action area (three of which 

are within or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed action footprint). Of these roosts, only 

Chicago Mine is in the proposed action footprint. Although dates of arrival at post-maternity 

sites are variable in Arizona from one year to the next, surveys in the action area in 2008, 2009, 

2010, and 2011 indicate that lesser long- nosed bats forage and occupy roosts in the area 

beginning at least in early August and, based on results at the Helena Complex, continuing into 

October. The large number of this species present at the Helena Mine complex in 2009 and 2011 

indicates that this site could be a roost complex of regional importance to lesser long-nosed bats. 

Lesser long-nosed bat numbers at post-maternity or transition roosts tend to fluctuate more than 

do numbers at maternity roosts. This fluctuation is apparently based on local forage availability 

(agave blooms). Agave blooming is subject to climatic conditions and during the ongoing, 

extended drought, some portions of the action area have been subject to forage failures. Lesser 

long-nosed bats are highly mobile and will switch to areas and roosts where forage is available. 

A number of activities occur in the action area that could affect bats. Because of the extent of 

Federal lands in the action area, most activities that currently, or have recently, affected the 

lesser long-nosed bats or their habitat in the action area are Federal actions, many of which have 

undergone formal consultation. Ongoing illegal border activities are an exception. Efforts are 

ongoing in the action area that contribute to the conservation and protection of lesser long-nosed 

bat populations and habitat within the action area. For example, the National Park Service and 

the Coronado National Forest have constructed bat gates at two lesser long-nosed bat roosts in 
85

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

the Huachuca and Canelo Hills, respectively. The effectiveness of these efforts is being 

monitored. Research and monitoring activities funded by Customs and Border Protection on 

public and private lands within the action area are contributing to our knowledge of lesser longnosed bat roost locations and developing appropriate protective measures for lesser long-nosed 

bat roost sites. In general, the lesser long-nosed bat populations within the action area are stable 

to increasing, but threats are ongoing, and in some cases increasing (climate change, invasive 

species, border activities, etc.) 

Effects of the Action - Lesser Long-Nosed Bat 

Effects to Roosts 

The proposed action will directly affect and result in the permanent loss of at least one known 

lesser long-nosed bat post-maternity roost site (Chicago Mine) within the footprint of the 

proposed mine, which in August 2008 contained approximately 12 to 15 lesser long-nosed bats, 

in 2009 contained approximately 32 lesser long-nosed bats, and in July 2011 contained one 

roosting lesser long-nosed bat. Any individual lesser long-nosed bats present within the footprint 

of the mine infrastructure (including the pit, buildings, roads, tailings or waste piles, etc.) will 

either be crushed or forced to relocate. Rosemont will close the Chicago Mine when lesser longnosed bats are not present in the Chicago Mine (excluded); therefore, no lesser long-nosed bats 

would be killed by the construction of the mine pit, if no individuals are in the mine during 

closure. 

Given the anticipated levels of project related activity and associated disturbance from noise, 

vibrations, and light, there exists the potential for effects on two additional lesser long-nosed bat 

post-maternity roosts adjacent to the proposed mine footprint [i.e., R2 (immediately adjacent to 

the southwestern portion of the proposed fence line of the proposed action0 and the Helena Mine 

complex (approximately 1 mile north-northeast of the fence line for the proposed action)]. At 

the R2 site, one lesser long-nosed bat was detected each year in 2008 and 2009, and three lesser 

long-nosed bats were detected there in 2011. More than 5,100 lesser long-nosed bats were 

counted at the Helena Mine complex in 2009, and approximately 4,650 lesser long-nosed bats 

were detected in 2011. Any individuals present adjacent to the mine footprint would experience 

effects from light, noise, and vibrations. Although Rosemont has developed a light pollution 

mitigation plan (Monrad et al. 2012), light from artificial illumination will increase light levels at 

night, and specific impacts of light on lesser long-nosed bats in the habitat within the project and 

actions areas are unknown; therefore, increased light levels could disrupt this nocturnal species, 

resulting in changes in dispersal, reproductive behavior, communication patterns, and decreased 

foraging success (Longcore and Rich 2004). Similarly, noise and vibrations from construction of 

the mine or blasting will disturb lesser long-nosed bats, likely causing changes in dispersal, 

reproductive behavior, communication patterns, decreased foraging success, increased predation 

and stress response, and possibly damaged hearing if the noise is loud enough (NoiseQuest 2013; 

Pater et al. 2009). The magnitude of impacts from noise, vibration, and light are uncertain, but 

these impacts are expected to decrease as the distance from the mine increases. 
86

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

While not addressing impacts to lesser long-nosed bat roosts from light, noise, blasting, etc., 

Rosemont will include a conservation measure as part of the proposed action that addressed the 

threat of human intrusion at these sites. Rosemont will fence or implement some other form of 

roost protection at the Helena Mine roost site and the R-2 Adit roost site. While these actions 

will potentially provide long-term protection of these known lesser long-nosed bat roost site, the 

fencing or other protective measures may also affect the use of these sites by lesser long-nosed 

bats. Such measures may alter the microclimate of the roosts, create impediments or hazards 

within the flight paths of bats entering and exiting the roosts, increase the vulnerability of lesser 

long-nosed bats to predators, or attract additional human activity to the sites. Rosemont has 

committed to coordinating these efforts with FWS and suitable entities so that appropriate 

measures that minimize effects to lesser long-nosed bats will be selected. Many of the potential 

negative effects of these measures can be avoided or significantly reduced with the selection of 

appropriate measures and the proper design and implementation of those measures. We are 

confident that we can work with Rosemont to develop appropriate protective measures for these 

roost sites, which will also present us with an opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of the 

selected protective measures with regard to lesser long-nosed bat roost conservation. 

Nonetheless, the implementation of protective measures at known lesser long-nosed bat roost 

sites will have effects and, potentially, take that must be evaluated in this BO. 

Effects to Forage 

The proposed action will affect lesser long-nosed bats through the removal of potential lesser 

long-nosed bat forage plants (i.e., paniculate agaves) in the late summer range of the species. 

Based on surveys, it is estimated that between 196,268 and 306,209 Palmer agave rosettes will 

be impacted as a result of the proposed action (WestLand 2009e). In terms of acres of lesser 

long-nosed bat foraging habitat, the mine pit and associated facilities, including roadways, will 

remove approximately 5,400 acres of foraging habitat. Effects on lesser long-nosed bat forage 

plants may also result from an increase in dust levels adjacent to access roads and mining areas. 

Agaves could be negatively impacted by windborne fugitive dust coating leaves, resulting in 

reduced photosynthetic activity. Physical effects of dust on plants may include blockage and 

damage to stomata, shading, and abrasion of leaf surface or cuticle (Goodquarry 2011). Reduced 

food sources could result in reduced reproduction success or could result in the abandonment of 

the action area and nearby roosts by lesser long-nosed bats. Known lesser long-nosed bat 

maternity roosts are all more than 75 miles from the proposed action area; therefore, no effects 

on lesser long-nosed bat maternity roosts are anticipated. 

In some of the WestLand technical reports, particularly WestLand (2012j), various aspects of 

livestock grazing management on Forest Service-managed allotments that are leased by 

Rosemont are proposed as a conservation measure to increase the availability of agave flower 

stalks. The grazing proposals address issues relative to grazing intensity and duration, as well as 

stock tank management. The proposal to reduce grazing pressure is proposed as a measure (in 

addition to agave planting) to compensate for the effects of the project on forage of lesser longnosed bat under the premise that reduced livestock grazing pressure during the agave bolting 

period will increase the number of available agave flower stalks when compared to the current 

livestock grazing approach. As outlined in Coronado National Forest’s second supplemental 
87

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

BA, we agree that the revised grazing management cannot completely compensate for the loss of 

agaves in the project area, nor can any of the other proposed conservation measures (reclamation 

using agaves and additional agave planting) completely compensate for the loss of agaves. We 

agree with the rationale outlined in the second supplemental BA emphasizing that (1) some of 

the project area capable of growing agaves will be permanently removed from the landscape by 

the action (e.g., formation of the pit); (2) there are uncertainties about the ability to grow, 

transplant, and recruit Palmer’s agave on the potentially capable areas following disturbance 

(e.g., waste rock facilities, roads, plant site); (3) previous consultation on livestock grazing has 

shown “no adverse effect” to lesser long-nosed bats from grazing anyway; (4) only 10% of the 

agaves lost from the project will be mitigated for by being planted; (5) seed mixes containing 

agave seeds are untested; (6) limited offsite, disturbed areas lacking agaves are proposed for 

restoration; and (7) conservation lands are not expected to differ significantly from the 

surrounding areas, with or without grazing (although easements could preclude future 

development or other actions with negative effects to lesser long-nosed bats). Nevertheless, 

FWS, like the Coronado National Forest, does support the concept of reduced grazing to help 

offset the effects of the action on Palmer agaves, the primary food source of the lesser longnosed bat, although we do not have specific data to determine the extent of this reduction or the 

potential benefit to lesser long-nosed bats. Additionally, we have found in previous section 7 

consultations that there has not been an adverse affect to lesser long-nosed bat from grazing on 

Palmer agave. 

As part of the proposed action, Rosemont will reroute portions of the Arizona Trail. On the one 

hand, this will reduce the potential for human disturbance at the Helena Mine lesser long-nosed 

bat roost site, but it will also result in new disturbance of lesser long-nosed bat foraging habitat 

and increase the human disturbance along the new Arizona Trail route. The proposed reroute of 

the Arizona Trail will encompass approximately 13 miles and 19 acres of disturbance. The 

proposed trail reroute will not occur in proximity to any additional, known lesser long-nosed bat 

roosts. Effects to vegetation will occur, including the possibility of additional impacts to agaves. 

Rosemont has included the potential planting or revegetation with agaves of the old Arizona trail 

alignment. This will help offset the additional impacts to lesser long-nosed bat foraging habitat. 

Effects from Noise and Lighting 

Artificial light from the mine activities was recognized as a source of effects to lesser long-nosed 

bats in the Coronado National Forest’s June BA and October Supplemental BA. The proposed 

action is expected to produce approximately 6.4 million lumens, which takes into account all 

lighting sources, including equipment-mounted lighting systems. To date, there is limited 

information on the existing condition, other than the qualitative observation that there is little 

existing artificial light, so the area is fairly dark. Because the project will operate around the 

clock, additional light pollution is of concern to astronomical interests and to the environmental 

community in general, particularly with regard to nocturnal species such as the lesser long-nosed 

bat. In the BA and Supplemental BA, there was some information on environmental 

consequences of light from the mine, but the existing technical reports targeted effects of “light 

pollution” and sky glow, primarily for astronomy and observatory concerns. More recently, 

WestLand produced another technical report related to the quantification of effects of the 
88

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

lighting associated with the Rosemont Mine Project (Westland 2012f). This report helped to 

quantify the intensity and attenuation of light within twelve miles of the project area, using 

predictive modeling based on known and assumed lighting sources and the topography of the 

area. This report displayed predicted increases in horizontal light from artificial sources at the 

proposed copper mine. 

Increases in light were displayed as increases to ambient light levels in terms of natural light 

levels (i.e., increase in artificial night light, based on different phases in the moon). The report 

also made it easier for us to envisage the amount of light at night from sky glow—it stated the 

artificial light would emit about the same number of lumens as the towns of Sells or Ajo, 

Arizona. That can be compared to the previous expectation (related to the initial Mine Plan of 

Operation) of sky glow similar to Nogales, Arizona. The Monrad (2012) and WestLand (2012g) 

reports both emphasize the improvements in the most recent lighting plan. The design features 

(which are not considered species-specific conservation measures) in the revised lighting plan 

are somewhat responsive to mitigating effects of lighting on plants and animals (Rich and 

Longcore 2006). In particular, part of this edited book that focuses on birds, Gauthreaux and 

Belser (2006, p. 87) lists the following “lighting control strategy options” (albeit more geared to 

office buildings than mines): 

• Installing motion-sensitive lighting 

• Using desk lamps and task lighting

• Reprogramming timers

• Adopting lower-intensity lighting 

Other taxa accounts in Rich and Longcore (2006) mention how certain wavelengths of 

emitted light can be adjusted to decrease effects to certain animals. At least some of the design 

features that employ these measures are discussed in Monrad (2012) and WestLand (2012g). 

These reports do show that there was a significant effort on the part of the proponent to reduce 

lighting effects, but artificial night-lighting will still affect the lesser long-nosed bat for the next 

25 to 30 years, despite the fact that Rosemont has committed to use light sources that minimize 

short wavelengths of light in an effort to reduce potential effects to wildlife. 

Vehicular traffic will be present on SR 83, the west and east access roads, and within the project 

area. It is important to consider synergistic effects of human activity related to artificial night 

lighting. Vehicular light, especially, will be compounded by noise at the source of activity. As 

an example, for a moving vehicle at night, effects of artificial lighting are synergistic with noise 

pollution and motion, resulting in a loud, bright, moving object). 

The Rosemont Mine project will create an epicenter of relatively intense lighting, similar to the 

light output of “the towns of Sells and Ajo”, as mentioned above. This new occurrence of light 

in an area where such lighting has not occurred in the past can impact wildlife. For example, a 

migratory bird flying over the area could be affected by this epicenter of artificial light from the 

project (see Gauthreaux and Belser 2006). Certainly artificial night light in proximity to the 

source would have a more significant impact on nocturnal species, such as the lesser long-nosed 

bat, than areas where the light becomes more diffused, such as in areas peripheral to the light 
89

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

source. Another aspect that cannot be readily quantified is the amount of light at an angle above 

the horizontal, but below the vertical. This is a possible issue for volant species. For example, 

when lesser long-nosed bats exit their roosts, they will quickly be above the horizontal, in an area 

experiencing elevated artificial light levels; spatially, this would be an area larger than that 

depicted by the figures presented by WestLand (2102g). 

There are many ways that plants and animals can be affected by artificial night lighting. Beier 

(2006) discussed some of the major physical and behavioral effects to mammals: 

• Disruption of foraging behavior

• Increased risk of predation

• Disruption of biological clocks

• Increased deaths in collisions on roads

• Disruption of dispersal movements

• Disruption of corridor use

While the specific effects of the lighting associated with the proposed Rosemont mine are largely 

unknown and discussed in terms of our best professional judgment, we do anticipate a real effect 

on the use of the area in the vicinity of the mine by foraging lesser long-nosed bats, and, 

potentially, effects on the use of roost sites affected by the lighting of the proposed mine. 

In the past century, the extent and intensity of artificial night lighting has increased such that it 

has substantial effects on the biology and ecology of species in the wild (Longcore and Rich 

2004). Recent studies have shown that artificial lights affect the movements of bats through the 

landscape, particularly slower flying bats. Stone et al. (2009) and Rydell (1992) showed in 

separate studies that street lighting disturbed and even prevented movements by certain species 

of bats; primarily bats with slower flight behavior. Recent telemetry research conducted by the 

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) on foraging lesser long-nosed bats in the Tucson 

Basin shows that foraging bats travel along washes as they move between foraging areas and 

roost locations. The AGFD believes that the washes provide areas of reduced lighting that 

provide pathways for movement while reducing the likelihood of predation and other threats 

(AGFD 2009). Lesser long-nosed bats use a hovering, slow flight while foraging and, as the 

AGFD research suggests, may be avoiding areas with artificial lighting. A study by Scanlon and 

Petit (2008) showed that urban parks without artificial lighting had higher bat use and bat species 

diversity than urban parks with artificial lighting, further indicating that artificial lighting can 

affect bat use and movements. A number of other studies also show negative effects on bat 

emergence, roost sites, movements, feeding behavior, and prey relationships (Boldogh et al. 

2007, Holsbeek 2008, Fure 2006, Bat Conservation Trust 2008, Downs et al. 2003). During a 

study on a nectar feeding bat species more closely related to the lesser long-nosed bat, Winter et 

al. (2003) found that Glossophaga soricina locates forage using ultraviolet light reflected by 

forage species. Because this attribute has not been researched in lesser long-nosed bats, it is not 

known whether lesser long-nosed bats have this same ability. However, these bats are in the 

same taxonomic family, and artificial light may cause interference or redirect foraging lesser 

long-nosed bats keying on ultraviolet light sources or reflections. We do not, however, have 

enough information to definitively evaluate this potential effect. Ongoing research by AGFD 
90

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

and others may provide additional information in the future regarding this issue. Information 

specific to the effects of lighting on lesser long-nosed bats are limited. We know that lesser 

long-nosed bats forage in areas which have increased levels of light compared to non-urbanized 

areas. However, given the observations of telemetered lesser long-nosed bats using areas of little 

or no urban lighting to move within the landscape, we anticipate that the light emitted as a result 

of the Rosemont will have effects to foraging and, potentially, roosting lesser long-nosed bats 

evidenced by reduced use or abandonment of the area. 

Noise effects to lesser long-nosed bats are related to blasting and drilling, ore processing, and 

waste rock and tailings placement. Day-to-day operations of the plant and associated travel by 

trucks and other equipment also contribute to noise impacts in the vicinity of the Rosemont Mine 

project. While much of the more intense activity will occur during daylight hours, the proximity 

of known lesser long-nosed bat roosts make it likely that day-roosting bats will be affected by the 

increased noise levels of the proposed mine. Lighting and noise disturbance will also affect 

foraging lesser long-nosed bats in the vicinity of the mine as some mine activity will occur 

around the clock. 

Changes in Lesser Long-Nosed Bat Status Within the Action Area 

Lesser long-nosed bats exhibit high fidelity to maternity roosts, returning year after year. 

Fidelity to post-maternity roost sites, such as those located within the action area of the 

Rosemont Mine project, is not as strong. The numbers of lesser long-nosed bats using postmaternity roost sites varies from year to year, and some sites may not be used every year. This is 

apparently in response to variability in the quantity and location of available forage resources. In 

some ways, this makes the conservation and protection of known post-maternity sites equally as 

important as the protection of maternity roost sites. The availability of post-maternity roost sites 

distributed across the landscape allows lesser long-nosed bats to take advantage of variable and 

ephemeral food resources. Without the flexibility of multiple roost sites from which to select, 

the most efficient and effective use of forage resources by lesser long-nosed bats may be 

precluded. As a result, altered timing of migration and inability to obtain adequate resources 

may result in migrating lesser long-nosed bats in poor condition which can contribute to 

increased mortality and reduced productivity. 

A number of the lesser long-nosed bat roosts within the action area occur on private lands and 

may or may not be subject to section 7 consultation for actions that could be proposed on these 

lands and which could affect lesser long-nosed bat roost sites. Lesser long-nosed bat roosts on 

public lands have been affected despite the efforts to protect those sites and despite the fact that 

such actions underwent section 7 consultation. In recent years, lesser long-nosed bat use at 

known roost locations has been affected by the occurrence of large wildfires and activities 

associated with illegal border crossing at these roost sites. These threats to lesser long-nosed bat 

roosts are not expected to diminish in the future. Ten additional post-maternity lesser long-nosed 

bat roost sites are located outside of the immediate vicinity of the Rosemont Mine project, but 

within the action area. Effects to any of these roost sites from fire, illegal border activities, poor 

forage production, or other threats may necessitate the use of the roost sites near the Rosemont 

Mine project. The converse is also true if the effects of the Rosemont Mine cause the roost sites 
91

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

near the mine to be abandoned or the use of those roosts to be reduced, necessitating the need for 

those bats to find and use alternative roost sites within the action area. If lesser long-nosed bats 

are unable to find alternative roost sites, their migratory patterns, body condition, and, ultimately, 

productivity may be affected. 

We conclude that the availability of post-maternity roost sites across the range of the lesser longnosed bat is crucial to this species’ ability to meet its life history requirements. In particular, this 

availability contributes to the lesser long-nosed bat’s ability to use an ephemeral and variable 

forage resource, as well as find protection afforded by roost sites if other roost sites within the 

range of the bat become compromised. The roost sites affected by the Rosemont Mine may 

reduce the availability of post-maternity roosts in this area of the lesser long-nosed bat’s range, 

and correspondingly reduce options for this species to meet its life history requirements. 

The Lesser Long-nosed bat Recovery Plan (FWS 1991) states that reclassification of the species 

from endangered to threatened would be warranted if all of the following criteria are met: (1) 

each major roost population in Arizona and Mexico is monitored for at least five years; (2) the 

results of that monitoring show that population numbers are stable or increase over the higher set 

of population figures appearing in this recovery plan; (3) sufficient progress has been made in 

the protection of roosts and forage plants from disturbance or destruction; (4) no new threats to 

the species or its habitat have been identified or there are no increases to currently recognized 

threats; and (5) the [FWS] Service determines the species is no longer endangered. The Lesser 

Long-Nosed Bat (Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation

(FWS 2007) considered additional data collected since the Recovery Plan was prepared and 

stated that the primary recovery actions are to monitor and protect known roost sites and 

foraging habitats.The proposed action will result in the loss of a single roost site as well as an 

appreciable acreage of forage resources, but the lesser long-nosed bat’s flexibility in selecting 

roosts an foraging areas, the protection of roosts elsewhere, the partial replacement of forage 

resources on-site, and the continues presence of roosts and forage plants in areas not affected by 

the Rosemont Copper Mine, make it unlikely that the ability to recover the species (meet the 

recovery criteria) will be diminished. 

Cumulative Effects - Lesser Long-Nosed Bat 

Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, tribal, local or private actions that are 

reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this BO. Future Federal actions that 

are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require 

separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act. 

The majority of lands within the action area are managed by Federal agencies; thus, most 

activities that could potentially affect lesser long-nosed bats are Federal activities that are subject 

to section 7 consultation. The Coronado National Forest and BLM manage approximately 45% 

of the lands within the action area and administer projects and permits on those lands; therefore, 

some of the activities that could potentially affect lesser long-nosed bats are likely Federal 

activities subject to additional Section 7 consultation under the ESA. The effects of these 

Federal activities are not considered cumulative effects. 
92

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Residential and commercial development, farming, livestock grazing, actions resulting in the 

invasion of buffelgrass, surface mining and other activities occur on these lands and, while 

difficult to predict and quantify, are expected to continue into the foreseeable future. Other nonFederal actions expected to occur include continued road maintenance, grazing activities, and 

recreation in the action area, current and future development, other nearby mining projects, and 

unregulated activities on non-federal lands, such as trespass livestock and inappropriate use of 

OHVs, which can cumulatively adversely affect the lesser long-nosed bat. Additional 

cumulative effects on lesser long-nosed bats include recreation without a Federal nexus and 

cross-border activities that include the following: human traffic; deposition of trash; new trails 

from human traffic; increased fire risk from human traffic; and water depletion and 

contamination. 

These actions, the effects of which are considered cumulative, may result in loss or degradation 

of lesser long-nosed bat foraging habitat, and potential disturbance of roosts, and are reasonably 

certain to occur in the action area considered in this BO. 

Conclusion - Lesser Long-Nosed Bat

After reviewing the current status of the lesser long-nosed bat; the environmental baseline for the 

action area; the effects of the proposed action; and the cumulative effects, it is our biological 

opinion that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the lesser 

long-nosed bat. No critical habitat has been designated for this species; therefore, none will be 

affected. Our conclusion is based on the following: 

1. Take of lesser long-nosed bats will occur as a result of the proposed action. Direct take 

of individuals is possible related to potential collisions with fencing or other protective 

structures and/or increased predation associated with the proposed conservation measures 

related to the Helena and R-2 roost sites. Other direct take associated with the proposed 

action is not anticipated because of certain proposed conservation measures, including 

survey and exclusion, which is included in the project design. Indirect take is expected in 

the form of harm or harass as a result of the complete loss of one lesser long-nosed bat 

roost site, and effects to two adjacent lesser long-nosed bat roost sites from increased 

human activity, and associated noise and light effects. Additional indirect take is 

anticipated from the significant loss of forage resources within the mine footprint, and the 

reduced availability of forage resources for some distance around the mine due to 

increased human activity, and associated noise and light effects. However, Rosemont has 

proposed conservation measures (see Proposed Action section above) to offset and 

reduce the potential for such indirect take associated with the proposed action. We 

conclude that these measures address the anticipated effects to lesser long-nosed bats to 

the extent that the proposed action will not jeopardize the continued existence of the 

lesser long-nosed bat. 
93

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

2. Monitoring and adaptive management will be applied to evaluate the effects of the 

proposed action, as well as the effectiveness of proposed conservation measures. This 

process will allow the Coronado National Forest and FWS to evaluate and adapt the 

approach of the proposed conservation measures to be as effective as possible. 

3. The acquisition and conservation of lands in the vicinity of the proposed mine will 

provide conservation benefit to the lesser long-nosed bat. Currently, these lands are 

subject to potential actions that could affect lesser long-nosed bat forage resources. The 

conservation, monitoring, and adaptive management approach for these lands will 

provide a conservation benefit to lesser long-nosed bats. 

4. Rosemont has proposed multiple conservation measures and project actions designed to 

reduce the effects of noise and light on the adjacent lesser long-nosed bat roosts. If these 

measures are successful or, through adaptive management, can be revised to be 

successful, the protective measures implemented at the Helena and R-2 roost sites will 

reduce the potential for roost disturbance by human intrusion at these sites. This provides 

a conservation benefit for the lesser long-nosed bat. 

5. Rosemont has proposed ongoing roost surveys and monitoring, and exclusion of bats 

prior to closure for small lesser long-nosed bat roosts to be lost as a result of the proposed 

mine. Currently, only one such small lesser long-nosed bat roost is known within the 

project area (the Chicago Mine). The potential for direct mortality of lesser long-nosed 

bats within this roost, as well as any other small lesser long-nosed bat roosts found within 

the construction area, will be reduced by implementing exclusion of lesser long-nosed 

bats prior to construction. 

6. Agaves will be included in restoration and reclamation activities associated with the 

proposed Rosemont Mine project. While there will be a temporal loss of forage 

resources, these restoration and reclamation activities will reduce the long-term loss of 

lesser long-nosed bat forage resources. Additionally, if the proposed changes to livestock 

grazing management, as outlined in the conservation measures above, are effective in 

reducing livestock impacts to agave flowering, some level of additional lesser long-nosed 

bat forage resources may be available on those allotments within the action area. 

 

7. The effects and actions noted under Conclusions 2 through 6, above, will make the 

proposed action unlikely to diminish the potential to recover the lesser long-nosed bat. 

The conclusions of this BO are based on full implementation of the project as described in the 

“Description of the Proposed Action” section of this document, including any conservation 

measures that were incorporated into the project design. 
94

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT - LESSER LONG-NOSED BAT

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act, prohibit take of 

endangered or threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. “Take” is defined as 

to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage 

in any such conduct. “Harm” is further defined to include significant habitat modification or 

degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral 

patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. “Harass” is defined in the regulations as ``an 

intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by 

annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which 

include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR §17.3). Incidental take is 

defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out an otherwise lawful 

activity. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and 

not intended as part of the proposed action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the 

Act provided such taking is in compliance with this Incidental Take Statement. 

The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be included by the USFS as 

binding conditions of any grant or permit issued to the applicant, as appropriate, for the 

exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The USFS has a continuing duty to regulate the activity 

that is covered by this Incidental Take Statement. If the USFS (1) fails to assume and implement 

the terms and conditions, or (2) fails to require the applicant to adhere to the terms and 

conditions of this incidental take statement through enforceable terms that are added to the 

permit or grant document, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to 

monitor the impact of incidental take, the USFS, or the applicant must report the progress of the 

action and its impact on the species as specified in the Incidental Take Statement (see 50 CFR 

402.14(I)(3)). 

Amount or Extent of Take - Lesser Long-Nosed Bat 

We anticipate incidental take of lesser long-nosed bats as a result of this proposed action in the 

form of direct mortality, as well as harm or harassment due to the effects of significant loss of 

forage resources, and to human disturbance and associated effects of noise and light. These 

effects are anticipated to cause lesser long-nosed bats to reduce their occupancy or abandon 

adjacent roost sites and move to alternate roost sites in the area, potentially affecting the regional 

population of lesser long-nosed bats through overuse of limited forage and roost resources. 

Specifically, incidental take for the currently proposed Rosemont Mine project is anticipated as 

follows: 

Take associated with roosts – It is difficult to assess take in the form of harm or harass for 

individual lesser long-nosed bats at roost sites because the number of individual bats fluctuates 

over time, and the take of individuals may actually occur away from the original roost site as a 

result of bats abandoning a known roost. Direct take (mortality of those bats left inside 

inadvertently and harm of those forced to relocate) resulting from the closure of a known roost 
95

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

site is more easily quantified, but is still dependent on the number of bats present if the closure 

occurs while the roost is occupied. Even if bats are excluded prior to closure, or if closure of the 

roost occurs during a time of year when the bats are not present, take of lesser long-nosed bats in 

the form of harm can still occur as a result of the loss of necessary habitat elements supporting 

the life history requirements of lesser long-nosed bats. The effects of noise, lights, and increased 

human activity in proximity to known lesser long-nosed bat roost sites, to the extent that such 

effects result in reduced occupancy or abandonment of the roost site, represents take in the form 

of harass. It is easier to quantify take of lesser long-nosed bats in relation to the number of roosts 

affected, rather than at the scale of individual lesser long-nosed bats. 

For take associated with roosts, we use the number of roosts lost or affected as a surrogate for 

take, rather than quantifying individual bats. We anticipate the loss of the Chicago Mine roost 

site as a result of the proposed mine. We also anticipate the loss of the R-2 and Helena roost 

sites if noise and light conservation measures and best management practices outlined earlier in 

this BO prove to be ineffective. While there is some potential for loss of other roost sites 

(Rosemont will continue reconnaissance-level surveys and may close additional occupied small 

roosts following exclusion of the bats), we conclude this is unlikely to occur because no 

additional occupied roosts have been found within the action area during previous surveys. If 

additional roosts are found, closure would be limited to small roost sites and exclusion should 

eliminate direct take of the bats occupying these small sites. Total take related to lesser longnosed bat roosts for the Rosemont Mine project is three post-maternity roosts (approximately 

6,000 bats); this is a relatively small proportion of the total numbers of bats known from 

population surveys (see Status of the Species section, above). 

While the implementation of protective measures at known lesser long-nosed bat roosts should 

result in long-term conservation benefits to the species, these measures can also result in 

mortality of individual bats due to collisions with the structures (gates, fences, etc.) or increased 

predation due to altered exit and return behavior of the bats. We believe most of these potential 

issues can be avoided by proper installation and design. However, the potential exists for some 

mortality of lesser long-nosed bats to occur. Therefore, we anticipate that up to 10 lesser longnosed bats may be directly taken as a result of the implementation of protective measures at 

known lesser long-nosed bat roosts. 

Indirect take associated with the loss of locally significant lesser long-nosed bat forage resources 

– Indirect take of lesser long-nosed bats associated with the loss of important forage resources 

will occur in the form of harm or harass. Harm will occur due to the permanent loss of locally 

significant forage resources. Take in the form of harass will occur if lesser long-nosed bats are 

precluded from using available forage resources due to noise, light, or increased human activities 

associated with the proposed Rosemont Mine. Such take is difficult to quantify and document at 

the level of individual bats. Take related to forage resources is likely to occur over time and is 

difficult to document because individual bats taken may not be affected in the same area as 

where the loss of forage resources has occurred. Loss or reduced availability of lesser longnosed bat forage resources can result in energetic impacts to lesser long-nosed bats. These 

effects can result in lesser long-nosed bats having to travel farther to find available forage 

resources, thereby using additional energetic reserves. If available forage resources are more 
96

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

limited than those lost due to the Rosemont Mine project, energetic rewards will be reduced, 

potentially affecting the wellbeing of affected individuals. Because lesser long-nosed bats are 

migratory, the inability of individual bats to acquire the needed resources for migration, due to 

reduce forage availability, affects multiple aspects of this species natural history. Additional 

intra-specific competition for reduced forage resources may also occur. Lesser long-nosed bats 

have high roost fidelity and increasing the number of bats using particular foraging areas due to 

lost forage resources resulting from Rosemont’s mining project can lead to increased intraspecific conflicts. Increased travel distance to use available forage also exposes lesser longnosed bats to increased risk of predation, collision, and other environmental threats. As 

indicated in the Recovery Plan and the 5-Year Review, adequate forage appropriately distributed 

across the range of the lesser long-nosed bat is needed to achieve recovery of the population. 

The widespread failure of agave flowering in 2006 impacted the lesser long-nosed bat 

population through increase use of hummingbird feeders as a source of food and migration out of 

the area earlier that would occur under normal agave flowering conditions. If lack of forage on 

the landscape in southeast Arizona results in changes in lesser long-nosed bat migration patterns 

as was seen in 2006, this can affect whether forage resources are available to the bats along the 

migration route due to the need to time forage availability with occupancy of the landscape by 

lesser long-nosed bats. The ability of this species to migrate, breed, and over-winter is 

dependent on adequate forage available at the time the bats are present. If this does not happen, 

population level effects to the species could occur. Given a reduced baseline of available lesser 

long-nosed bat forage due to recent large, intense wildfires in the Chiricahua, Huachuca, and 

Atascosa mountains, additional forage losses due to the proposed action could limit available 

forage in the region and result in more widespread, population level impacts to this species 

resulting from the potential need to switch roosts, travel longer distances to forage, and possible 

changes to the timing of migration, which, if the timing of migration changes enough, may affect 

forage availability as the bats migrate south. 

Therefore, we will use the number of acres of forage resources lost as a surrogate for take of 

individual lesser long-nosed bats. With regard to the amount of incidental take authorized under 

this BO, using habitat as a surrogate for take of individual lesser long-nosed bats, the FWS 

authorizes take in the form of harm and harass due to the loss of significant forage resources for 

up to and including 5,401 acres (USFS 2013d) of lesser long-nosed bat foraging habitat (acres of 

habitat supporting Palmer’s agave). This take is anticipated for the long-term loss of foraging 

habitat within the footprint of the mine pit and mine facilities, including roadways, utility 

corridors and relocation of the Arizona National Scenic Trail. 

In summary, and stated differently, the maximum allowable incidental take of lesser long-nosed 

bats is: (1) harassment of 6,000 individuals at three post-maternity roosts; (2) harm of ten 

individuals at known lesser long-nosed bat roosts subject to the implementation of protective 

measures; and (3) loss of 5,401 acres of affected habitat containing Palmer’s agave, a surrogate 

measure of take (via harm and harassment) of individuals. 

Effect of the Take - Lesser Long-Nosed Bat 

In this BO, the FWS determines that this level of anticipated take is not likely to result in 
97

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

jeopardy to the species for the reasons stated in the Conclusions section. No critical habitat has 

been designated for the lesser long-nosed bat; therefore, no critical habitat will be destroyed or 

adversely modified. 

Reasonable and Prudent Measures - Lesser Long-Nosed Bat

The Rosemont Copper Company has included a number of measures and design elements within 

their proposed action that should, once completely implemented, reduce the proposed action’s 

adverse effects to lesser long-nosed bats. The following Reasonable and Prudent Measures are 

necessary and appropriate to minimize take of lesser long-nosed bats: 

1. Rosemont shall work with the FS, FWS, and other entities to permanently protect a 

known lesser long-nosed bat roost site within, or as close to the action area as possible. 

2. In the event that either the R-2 and/or Helena lesser long-nosed bat roosts are abandoned 

or experience a significant reduction in occupancy over time, and these occurrences can 

be reasonably attributed to the proposed Rosemont Mine, Rosemont shall work with the 

FS, FWS, and other entities to permanently protect an additional lesser long-nosed bat 

roost site within the action area. 

3. Rosemont shall ensure that the effectiveness of protective measures implemented at the 

Helena and R-2 roost sites, including effects to bat behavior, and bat mortality or 

predation, and occupancy of the sites, are monitored. Monitoring shall also occur at any 

other lesser long-nosed bat roosts where protective measures are implemented as part of 

the conservation measures outlined in the proposed action. 

4. In addition to the agave planting outline in Conservation Measure 11 for lesser longnosed bats, Rosemont shall implement additional agave planting and monitoring within 

the action area to help offset losses of lesser long-nosed bat forage resources associated 

with the proposed action. 

5. Rosemont shall implement conservation measures and Reasonable and Prudent Measures, 

except for survey and monitoring activities, during the times of year when lesser longnosed bats are not present. 

6. Rosemont shall annually report to the FWS the results of the implementation and results 

of the Terms and Conditions outlined below. 

Terms and Conditions - Lesser Long-Nosed Bat 

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, Rosemont shall comply with 

the following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent measures 

described above and outline required reporting/monitoring requirements. These terms and 

conditions are non-discretionary. 
98

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

1. The following terms and conditions implement Reasonable and Prudent Measures 1 and 2 for the 

lesser long-nosed bat: 

a. Rosemont shall implement protective measures at a known lesser long-nosed bat 

roost site within, or as close to the action area as possible. The known roost 

where this term and condition will be applied, as well as the appropriate 

associated protective measures, will be evaluated and selected through 

coordination with FWS, other entities, and the USFS (for biological and technical 

input as well as to incorporate concerns with the agency’s existing Abandoned 

Mine Lands program). 

b. Based on information gathered as outlined in the Conservation Measures for 

lesser long-nosed bats earlier in this document, if Rosemont or their agents 

observe during monitoring at either the R-2 or Helena lesser long-nosed bat 

roosts: (1) an up to 25 percent decline in the numbers of lesser long-nosed bats for 

3 consecutive years; or (2) a greater than 25 percent decline in each of 2 years; or 

(3) a complete abandonment of the roost in 1 year, the adaptive management as 

described in Conservation Measure 9 will include selection of protective measures 

to be applied to another known lesser long-nosed bat roost within or as close to 

the action area as possible. Known roosts and associate protective measures will 

be evaluated and selected through coordination with FWS and other entities. 

c. Protective measures agreed upon by the Coronado National Forest, the FWS, and 

other entities at the selected roost sites shall include completion of any 

environmental compliance requirements and initiation of project elements within 

one year of roost site selection. 

d. Pre- and post-implementation monitoring will occur at these roost sites, with an 

annual report to the FWS for a period of four years (1 season of preimplementation monitoring and 3 seasons of post-implementation monitoring). 

2. The following term and condition implements reasonable and prudent measure #3 for the 

lesser long-nosed bat: 

With input from the FWS and other entities, Rosemont shall implement a monitoring program to 

evaluate the effectiveness of protective measures implemented at known lesser long-nosed bat 

roosts as part of the conservation measures included in the proposed action. Monitoring shall 

include a minimum of three visits per season and include methods to evaluate: 

 as appropriate, any collisions, increased predation over existing levels, or other 

sources of lesser long-nosed bat mortality associated with the protective 

measures. 

 the long-term integrity of structures installed as part of the protective measures. 

 any impacts to exit and return behavior of lesser long-nosed bats that may be 

caused by the protective measures. Note that pre-installation monitoring must be 

conducted so that changes can be detected. 
99

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

 the effectiveness of the protective measures in reducing disturbance and other 

impacts to lesser long-nosed bat roosts. Pre-installation assessment of the 

disturbance and other impacts must be conducted so that changes can be detected 

Results of this monitoring program shall be reported in the annual report to FWS as 

outlined in the Conservation Measures section of this BO. 

3. The following terms and conditions implement reasonable and prudent measure #4 for 

the lesser long-nosed bat. The objective of these terms and conditions is to seek to 

restore an equivalent acreage of agave habitat affected by the proposed action: 

a. Rosemont shall reclaim the short road segment leading to the R-2 Adit roost site, 

including the use of agave planting (if the FS, RCC, FWS, and other entities 

determine site conditions would support the species) to reduce the likelihood of 

human intrusion at this roost site. 

b. Rosemont shall investigate the feasibility of agave plantings at ecologically 

appropriate sites on proposed conservation lands, including Sonoita Creek Ranch, 

Davidson Canyon Watershed parcels, and Helvetia Ranch North parcels. Plant 

agaves at ecologically appropriate densities (as determined by RCC, FWS, and 

other entities) and conduct follow-up monitoring at sites where such plantings are 

feasible and have a high likelihood of success. The status and success of these 

efforts should be included in the annual report to FWS as outlined in the 

Conservation Measures section of this BO. 

4. The following term and condition implements reasonable and prudent measure #5 for the 

lesser long-nosed bat: 

a. Rosemont shall implement conservation measures related to known lesser longnosed bat roost protection measures to rerouting of the Arizona Trail, reclamation 

and revegetation, and any other project activities that will occur in proximity to 

known lesser long-nosed bat roosts during the time of year when lesser longnosed bats are not present in the project action area. Such activities could 

typically be carried out from November 1 to July 1 of each year. 

5. The following term and condition implements reasonable and prudent measure #6 for the 

lesser long-nosed bat: 

a. In addition to the reporting requirements already specified as part of the 

 proposed action, Rosemont, or their agents shall report to FWS: 

 The monitoring and adaptive management process outlined in the BA and this BO 

is key to reducing take of lesser long-nosed bats resulting from the 

implementation of this project. Therefore, Rosemont shall report to the FWS the 

results of all monitoring and adaptive management actions undertaken as a result 
100

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

of this project. Annually, and in compliance with the reporting deadlines outlined 

above in this BO, Rosemont shall provide a report to FWS that includes: (a) any 

new lesser long-nosed bat roosts documented as a result of monitoring; (b) 

monitoring data for all roost sites occupied by lesser long-nosed bats including 

dates and numbers of lesser long-nosed bats counted; (c) classification of each 

lesser long-nosed bat roost monitored with regard to season of use; (d) any 

documented negative effects of the protective measures as discussed in Term and 

Condition #2 above, e) any recommendations to remove or alter the roost 

protective measures or change the monitoring protocol; (f) results of monitoring 

to document the effectiveness of the roost protection measures implemented at the 

Helena and R-2 roost sites, as well as any additional lesser long-nosed bat roost 

protected as a result of the implementation of the conservation measures outlined 

in the proposed action; (g) any other pertinent information related to monitoring 

and adaptive management under this project. 

a. The Biological Monitor shall report to the FWS all data received from Rosemont related 

to the monitoring of known lesser long-nosed bat roosts and reconnaissance level surveys 

within 10 working days of each monitoring or survey effort. The Biological Monitor 

shall report the intent to close any feature that supports 30 or more lesser long-nosed bats 

to FWS at least 30 days prior to initiating exclusion and closure of the feature. Note that 

since the Biological Monitor will be employed by the Coronado National Forest, this 

portion of the Term and Condition applies to the Forest Service. 

Review requirement: The reasonable and prudent measures, with their implementing terms and 

conditions, are designed to minimize incidental take that might otherwise result from the 

proposed action. If, during the course of the action, the level of incidental take is exceeded, such 

incidental take would represent new information requiring review of the reasonable and prudent 

measures provided. The Coronado National Forest must immediately provide an explanation of 

the causes of the taking and review with the FWS the need for possible modification of the 

reasonable and prudent measures. 

Conservation Recommendations-Lesser Long-Nosed Bat

Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the 

purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and 

threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to 

minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to 

help implement recovery plans, or to develop information. 

1. We recommend that the Coronado National Forest participate in the development of a 

revised long-term monitoring protocol for the lesser long-nosed bat as outlined in the 

most recent Lesser Long-Nosed Bat 5-year review and the recently completed evaluation 

by the University of Arizona (Cerro 2012). 

2. We recommend that the Coronado National Forest participate in the development of a 

range-wide agave monitoring program with a standardized monitoring protocol. 
101

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

3. We encourage the Coronado National Forest to initiate or participate in additional lesser 

long-nosed bat research related to the foraging patterns, roost occupancy patterns, and 

seasonal behavior of lesser long-nosed bats in southern Arizona. 

4. We encourage the Coronado National Forest to work with Border Patrol and the 

Department of Homeland Security to assess and minimize the impacts of border fences 

and other facilities on the lesser long-nosed bat. 

In order for the FWS to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or 

benefiting listed species or their habitats, the FWS requests notification of the implementation of 

any conservation recommendations. 

STATUS OF THE SPECIES- JAGUAR 

Legal Status 

In 1972, the jaguar (Panthera onca) 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 FWS 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. On July 25, 1979, the FWS published a notice (44 FR 

43705) stating that, through an oversight in the listing of the jaguar and six other endangered 

species, the United States populations of these species were not protected by the Act. The notice 

asserted that it was always the intent of the FWS that all populations of these species, including 

the jaguar, deserved to be listed as endangered, whether they occurred in the United States or in 

foreign countries. Therefore, the notice stated that the FWS intended to take action as quickly as 

possible to propose the U.S. populations of these species (including the jaguar) for listing. On 

July 25, 1980, the FWS published a proposed rule (45 FR 49844) to list the jaguar and four of 

the other species referred to above in the United States. The proposal for listing the jaguar and 

three other species was withdrawn on September 17, 1982 (47 FR 41145) stating that the Act 

mandated withdrawal of proposed rules to list species which have not been finalized within 2 

years of the proposal. On July 22, 1997, the FWS published a final rule clarifying that 

endangered status for the jaguar extended into the United States (62 FR 39147). 

Life History 

The jaguar, a large member of the cat family (Felidae), is an endangered species that currently 

occurs from southern Arizona and New Mexico to southern South America. Jaguars are 

muscular cats with relatively short, massive limbs and a deep-chested body. They are cinnamonbuff in color with many black spots; melanistic (dark coloration) forms are also known, primarily 

from the southern part of the range. 

The life history of the jaguar has been summarized by Seymour (1989, entire) and Brown and 

López González (2001, entire), among others. Jaguars breed year-round rangewide, but at the 

southern and northern ends of their range there is evidence for a spring breeding season. 
102

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Gestation is about 100 days; litters range from one to four cubs (usually two). Cubs remain with 

their mother for nearly 2 years. Females begin sexual activity at 3 years of age, males at 4. 

Studies have documented few wild jaguars more than 11 years old, although a wild male jaguar 

in Arizona was documented to be at least 15 years of age (Johnson et al. 2011, p. 12), and in 

Jalisco, Mexico, two wild females were documented to be at least 12 and 13 (Núñez 2011, pers. 

comm.). The consensus of jaguar experts is that the average lifespan of the jaguar is 10 years. 

Prey 

The list of prey taken by jaguars throughout their range includes more than 85 species (Seymour 

1989, p. 4). Known prey include, but are not limited to, collared peccaries (javelina (Pecari 

tajacu)), white-lipped peccaries (Tayassu pecari), capybaras (Hydrochoerus spp.), pacas (Agouti 

paca), agoutis (Dasyprocta spp.), armadillos (Dasypus spp.), caimans (Caiman spp.), turtles 

(Podocnemis spp.), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), livestock, and various other 

reptiles, birds, and fish (sources as cited in Seymour 1989, p. 4; Núñez et al. 2000, pp. iii–iv; 

Rosas-Rosas 2006, p. 17; Rosas-Rosas et al. 2008, pp. 557–558). Jaguars are considered 

opportunistic feeders, especially in rainforests, and their diet varies according to prey density and 

ease of prey capture (sources as cited in Seymour 1989, p. 4). Jaguars equally use medium- and 

large-size prey, with a trend toward use of larger prey as distance increases from the equator 

(López González and Miller 2002, p. 218). Javelina and white-tailed deer are thought to be the 

mainstays in the diet of jaguars in the United States and Mexico borderlands (Brown and López 

González 2001, p. 51). 

Home Range and Movement 

Like most large carnivores, jaguars have relatively large home ranges. According to Brown and 

López-González (2001), their home ranges are highly variable and depend on sex, topography, 

available prey, and population dynamics. However, little information is available on this subject 

outside tropical America, where several studies of jaguar ecology have been conducted. Data 

compiled from studies in Brazil, Venezuela, and Belize found mean home range areas for males 

to vary from 12.8 to 140 square kilometers (km2)[5 to 52 square miles (mi2)] during the wet 

season and 28 to 165.8 km2(11 to 64 mi2) during the dry season. For females, the ranges were 

smaller, with less variation between seasons (Rabinowitz and Nottingham 1986, Crawshaw and 

Quigley 1991, Brown and López-González 2001, Cavalcanti and Gese 2009). In the tropical 

deciduous forest of Jalisco, Mexico, mean home range size for two males was 100.3 +/- 15.0 km2

(38.7 +/- 5.8 mi2

) and four females was 42.5 +/- 16 km2 (16.4 +/- 6.2 mi2) (Núñez-Pérez 2006). 

Only one limited home range study using standard radio-telemetry techniques has been 

conducted for jaguars in northwestern Mexico. Telemetry data from one adult female tracked for 

four months during the dry season in the municipality of Sahuaripa, Sonora, indicated a home 

range size of 100 km2(39 mi2) (López-González 2011, pers. comm.). Additionally, camera trap 

data indicated that the average male home range in the municipality of Sahuaripa, Sonora, was 

84 km2

(32 mi2) (López-González 2011, pers. comm.). Also using camera traps, in Nacori 

Chico, Sonora, Rosas-Rosas and Bender (2012) estimated the home range for one adult male 

jaguar encompasses about 200 km2

(77 mi2).
103

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

No home range studies have been conducted for jaguars in southwestern U.S. using standard 

radio-telemetry techniques. The home ranges of borderland jaguars are presumably as large or 

larger than the home ranges of tropical jaguars (Brown and López González 2001, p. 60), as 

jaguars in this area are at the northern limit of their range and the arid environment contains 

resources and environmental conditions that are more variable than those in the tropics (Hass 

2002, as cited in McCain and Childs 2008, p. 6). Therefore, jaguars require more space in arid 

areas to obtain essential resources such as food, water, and cover. 

In coastal Jalisco, jaguars moved up to 20 km (12.4 mi) in one night and one juvenile male 

dispersed about 70 km (43.5 mi) to the north (Núñez et al. 2002). The mean one-day movement 

of radio-collared jaguars in the Pantanal region of southwestern Brazil was 2.4 +/- 2.3 km (1.5 

+/- 1.4 mi), with that of one male being significantly larger [3.3 +/- 1.8 km (2.0 +/- 1.1 mi)] than 

that displayed by females (1.8 +/- 2.5 km) (Crawshaw and Quigley 1991). Additionally, the 

mean distance travelled by all animals during one-day intervals in the dry season [2.7 +/- 2.5 km 

(1.7 +/- 1.5 mi)] was significantly greater than the mean one-day movement for all other months 

combined [1.6 +/- 2.1 km (1.0 +/- 1.3 mi)] (Crawshaw and Quigley 1991). In Brazil, male 

jaguars have been documented to disperse up to 64 km (Rabinowitz and Zeller 2010). 

Habitat 

Jaguars are known from a variety of vegetation communities (Seymour 1989). Toward and at 

middle latitudes, they show a high affinity for lowland wet communities, including swampy 

savannas or tropical rain forests. Swank and Teer (1989) stated that jaguars prefer a warm, 

tropical climate, usually associated with water, and are rarely found in extensive arid areas. 

However, jaguars have been documented in arid areas, including thornscrub, desertscrub, 

lowland desert, mesquite grassland, Madrean oak woodland, and pine-oak woodland 

communities of northwestern Mexico and southwestern U.S. (Boydston and López-González 

2005, McCain and Childs 2008, López-González and Brown 2002). The more open, dry habitat 

of southwestern U.S. has been characterized as marginal in terms of water, cover, and prey 

densities (Rabinowitz 1999). Jaguars rarely occur above 2,591 m (8,500 ft) (Brown and LópezGonzález 2001). 

Conde et al. (2010) found significant differences in habitat use between male and female jaguars 

in the Mayan Forest of the Yucatan Peninsula by modeling occupancy as a function of land cover 

type, distance to roads, and sex. Although both male and female jaguars prefer tall forest, short 

forest was used by females but avoided by males. Other studies have also shown that jaguars 

selectively use large areas of relatively intact habitat away from certain forms of human 

influence. Zarza et al. (2007) report that towns and roads had an impact on the spatial 

distribution of jaguars [jaguars used more frequently than expected by chance areas located more 

than 6.5 km (4 mi) from human settlements and 4.5 km (2.8 mi) from roads] in the Yucatan 

peninsula. In the state of Mexico, Monroy-Vichis et al. (2007) report that one male jaguar 

occurred with greater frequency in areas relatively distant from roads and human populations. In 

some areas of western Mexico, however, jaguars (both sexes) have frequently been recorded near 

human settlements and roads (Núñez-Pérez, August 2, 2011, email to FWS.). In Marismas 
104

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Nacionales, Nayarit, a jaguar den was recently located very close to an agricultural field, 

apparently 1 km (0.6 mi) from a small town (Núñez-Pérez, August 2, 2011, email to FWS). 

Jaguar presence is affected in different ways by various human activities; however, direct 

persecution likely has the most significant impact. 

No formal habitat use studies have been conducted (with the exception of Núñez et al.’s (2002) 

examination of arroyo use) in the northwestern most portion of the jaguar’s range. However, 

results of a study in the municipality of Nácori Chico, Sonora, showed that jaguar kill sites of 

wild prey (i.e., white-tailed deer and peccary) (Rosas-Rosas, August 6, 2011, email to FWS) and 

cattle were positively associated with oak forest and semi-tropical thornscrub vegetation types, 

whereas they were negatively associated with upland mesquite (Rosas-Rosas et al. 2010). Sites 

of cattle kills were also positively associated with proximity to permanent water sources and 

roads (Rosas-Rosas et al. 2010). General jaguar habitat associations have been described in this 

region by various authors. In western Mexico, including Nayarit and Jalisco, jaguars primarily 

occur in tropical deciduous forest, although other formerly important habitats are the mangrove 

forests and swamps of the Agua Bravo and Marismas Nacionales straddling the borders of 

Nayarit and Sinaloa (Brown and López-González 2001). In Jalisco, oak and pine forest are used 

by jaguars, some of them located between 2,700 and 2,800 m (8,858 ft and 9,186 ft) in elevation 

(Núñez-Pérez, August 2, 2011, email to FWS). Although jaguars are not primarily associated 

with these vegetation communities, it is important to consider oak woodlands and pine forests as 

potential jaguar corridors (Núñez-Pérez, August 2, 2011, email to FWS). 

Several studies have helped refine a general understanding of habitats that have been or might be 

used by jaguars in Arizona and New Mexico, including studies by the Sierra Institute Field 

Studies Program (2000), Hatten et al. (2002 and 2005), Menke and Hayes (2003), Boydston and 

López-González (2005), Robinson et al. (2006), McCain and Childs (2008), Grigione et al. 

(2009), Sanderson and Fisher (2013a, 2013b). As Johnson et al. (2011) explain, however, any 

conclusions about the conservation importance of the habitat types in which jaguars have 

occurred or might occur in Arizona and New Mexico are preliminary and can vary widely, 

depending on what assumptions are factored into the analyses, such as the number and reliability 

of jaguar occurrence records and the significance of single “point in time” occurrence 

observations as predictors of habitat use by jaguars. 

Hatten et al. (2005) used Geographic Information System (GIS) to characterize potential jaguar 

habitat in Arizona by overlaying 25 historic jaguar sightings on landscape and habitat features 

believed important (e.g., vegetation biomes and series, elevation, terrain ruggedness, proximity 

to perennial or intermittent water sources, human density). The amount of Arizona land area 

identified as potential jaguar habitat ranged from 21 to 30 percent, depending on the input 

variables. One hundred percent of jaguar records were observed in four biomes. Of these, 56 

percent were observed in scrub grasslands of southeastern Arizona, 20 percent in Madrean 

evergreen forest, 12 percent in Rocky Mountain montane conifer forest, and 12 percent in Great 

Basin conifer woodland. Related to water, when springs, rivers, and creeks were combined, 100 

percent of the jaguar records were within 10 km (6.2 mi) of a water source. Sixty percent of 

jaguars were observed between 1,220 and 1,829 m (4,003 and 6,001 ft) in elevation, largely in 

the scrub grassland biome of southeastern Arizona. The remaining jaguar sightings were 
105

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

between 1,036 and 2,743 m (3,399 and 8,999 ft). With respect to topography, 92 percent of 

jaguar sightings occurred in intermediately rugged to extremely rugged terrain, with the 

remainder (8 percent) in nearly level terrain. 

More recently, Sanderson and Fisher (2013a, 2013b) modeled jaguar habitat in the Northwestern 

Jaguar Recovery Unit (NRU) (see description below) following a variant of the Hatten et al. 

(2005) method. Habitat factors used to characterize potential jaguar habitat were: (1) percentage 

of tree cover; (2) ruggedness index; (3) human influence; (4) ecoregion; (5) elevation (some 

model versions only); and (6) distance from water. Altogether, 13 habitat model versions were 

produced with input from the Technical Subgroup of the Jaguar Recovery Team. The habitat 

models were also translated into carrying capacity. The final habitat model (version 13) suggests 

a potential carrying capacity of more than 3,400 jaguars over an area of over 226,000 km2. This 

capacity was further broken down into smaller geographic areas or “subunits” of the NRU 

which, from south to north, may have the potential to contain: approximately 1,318 jaguars in the 

Jalisco Core Area, approximately 929 jaguars in the Sinaloa Secondary Area, approximately 

1,124 jaguars in the Sonora Core Area, and approximately 42 jaguars in the Borderlands 

Secondary Area (which include portions of northern Sonora, southern Arizona, and southeastern 

New Mexico). The current populations are substantially below these carrying capacities, but are 

not zero according to recent observations in all four subunits (Sanderson and Fisher 2013a, 

2013b). 

Distribution, Abundance, Population Trends 

The only neotropical large carnivore with a distribution extending north into the Madrean 

Archipelago is the jaguar. Historically, the jaguar inhabited 21 countries throughout the 

Americas, from the United States south into Argentina, but currently the jaguar is found in 19 of 

those countries (no longer in El Salvador and Uruguay) (Caso et al. 2008). The population trend 

of jaguars is decreasing (Caso et al. 2008), although the rate of decline is unknown and likely 

highly variable throughout the jaguar range. To better understand abundance and population 

trends, research, inventories, and monitoring programs are being implemented in some parts of 

the jaguar range (Caso et al. 2008, Wildlife Conservation Society 2007, Chávez et al. 2007, 

Panthera 2011). During a symposium in November 2009 titled "The Jaguar in the XXI Century: 

The Continental Perspective", experts estimated that there are still probably more than 30,000 

jaguars (Medellin 2009) and that Mexico has an estimated 4,100 jaguars (Zarza et al. 2010). 

Sanderson et al. (2002) found that the jaguar is known to be extant in about 8.75 million km2 

(3.4 million mi2), which represents 46 percent of its historical global range. Jaguars are known 

to be extirpated in 37 percent of their historical range, and their status in another 18 percent is 

unknown (Sanderson et al. 2002). The probability of long-term survival of the jaguar is 

considered high in 70 percent of the currently occupied range (over 6 million km2 or 2.3 million 

mi2) (Sanderson et al. 2002). Zeller (2007) updated Sanderson et al.’s (2002) work and found 

that the jaguar is known to be extant in about 11.7 million km2, which represents 61% of its 

historical range, likely reflecting simply a greater representation of knowledge rather than actual 

range expansion. Within the currently occupied range, 90 Jaguar Conservation Units (JCUs) 

were identified representing a total area of 1.9 million km2 (0.7 million mi2) (Zeller 2007). 

JCUs were defined either as: (1) areas with a stable prey community, currently known or 
106

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

believed to contain a population of resident jaguars large enough (at least 50 breeding 

individuals) to be potentially self-sustaining over the next 100 years; or (2) areas containing 

fewer jaguars but with adequate habitat and a stable, diverse prey base, such that jaguar 

populations in the area could increase if threats were alleviated (Sanderson et al. 2002, Zeller 

2007). 

In northwestern and western Mexico, jaguars occur from the border of Colima and Jalisco north 

through Nayarit, Sinaloa, southwestern Chihuahua, and Sonora to the border with the U.S. 

Breeding populations currently occur in Jalisco, Nayarit, Sinaloa, and Sonora. The most 

northern recently documented breeding population of jaguars occurs in Sonora near the towns of 

Huasabas and Sahuaripa, about 210 km (130 mi) south of the U.S./Mexico international border 

(Valdez et al. 2002, Brown and López-González 2001). Since 2009, two jaguars have been 

documented at Rancho El Aribabi, Sonora, about 48 km (30 mi) southeast of Nogales, and one 

jaguar has been documented in the Sierra Los Ajos within the Reserva Forestal Nacional y 

Refugio de Fauna Silvestre Ajos-Bavispe, about 48 km (30 miles) south of the U.S. border near 

Naco, Mexico. Estimates in the Sonora and Jalisco JCUs were 50-100 and >500, respectively 

(Zeller 2007). Results of the Mexican National Jaguar Census (Manriquez, July 15, 2011, email 

to FWS) indicate there are an estimated 271 jaguars in Sonora, 211 in Sinaloa, 92 in Nayarit, and 

176 in Jalisco. 

In the United States, jaguars historically occurred in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, 

and possibly Louisiana (62 FR 39147). The last jaguar sightings in California, Texas, and 

Louisiana were documented in the late 1800s into the early 1900s, with the last confirmed jaguar 

killed in Texas in 1948 (Nowak 1975). While jaguars have been documented as far north as the 

Grand Canyon, Arizona, occurrences in the U.S. since 1963 have been limited to south-central 

Arizona and extreme southwestern New Mexico. Three records of females with cubs have been 

documented in the U.S. (all in Arizona), the last in 1910 (Lange 1960, Nowak 1975, Brown 

1989), and no females have been confirmed in the U.S. since 1963 (Brown and López-González 

2000, Johnson et al. 2011). As a result, jaguars in the U.S. are thought to be part of a population, 

or populations, that occur largely in Mexico. 

From 1996 through 2013, several individual adult jaguars have been documented in the U.S. 

(i.e., within Arizona and New Mexico). One adult male was observed and photographed on 

March 7, 1996, in the Peloncillo Mountains in New Mexico near the Arizona border (Glenn 

1996, Brown and López-González 2001). The Peloncillo Mountains run north-south to the 

Mexican border, where they join the foothills of the Sierra San Luis and other mountain ranges 

connecting to the Sierra Madre Occidental. Another jaguar was photographed in 2004; however, 

it could not be determined if the animal was a unique individual. Another adult male was 

observed and photographed on August 31, 1996, in the Baboquivari Mountains of southern 

Arizona (Childs 1998, Brown and López-González 2001). In February 2006, another adult male 

jaguar was observed and photographed in the Animas Mountains in Hidalgo County, New 

Mexico (McCain and Childs 2008). From 2001 to 2009, two jaguars, both adult males, were 

photographed (one repeatedly) using infra-red camera traps in south-central Arizona, near the 

Mexico border, one of which, was the male observed and photographed in 1996 in the 

Baboquivari Mountains. More specifically, these two jaguars were documented in three different 
107

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

mountain range complexes in southeastern Arizona, over an area extending from the 

U.S./Mexico international border north 66 km (47 mi) and 63 km (39 mi) east to west (McCain 

and Childs 2008). Furthermore, they were found using areas from rugged mountains at 1,577 m 

(5,174 ft) to flat lowland desert floor at 877 m (2,877 ft) (McCain and Childs 2008). A male 

jaguar was seen and photographed by a hunter in the Whetstone Mountains in 2011. Male 

jaguars have been documented in southern Arizona, within and near the proposed action area, as 

recently as August 2013 (see Environmental Baseline section below). The rugged and arid 

conditions at the northern limit of this distribution contrast sharply to lush tropical forests to the 

south (Boydston and López González 2005). 

Boydston and López-González (2005) estimated the potential geographic distribution of jaguars 

in the southwestern U.S. and northwestern Mexico by modeling the jaguar ecological niche from 

occurrence records [100 male records from Arizona (47), New Mexico (6), Chihuahua (8), and 

Sonora (39) and 42 female records from Arizona (6) and Sonora (36)]. They report that eastern 

Sonora appeared capable of supporting male and female jaguars with potential range expansion 

into southeastern Arizona, while New Mexico and Chihuahua contained environmental 

characteristics primarily limited to the male niche and thus may be areas into which males 

occasionally disperse. They found significant differences between land cover within the female 

distribution and the available landscape. The predicted distribution of female jaguars was mainly 

across areas of shrubland, deciduous broadleaf forest, and grassland, but deciduous broadleaf 

forest and mixed forest composed more of the female distribution than expected by chance when 

compared to the available land cover for the study area. Shrubland was a smaller proportion of 

the female distribution than expected, and grassland and needleleaf forest were present in 

proportion to their availability. Boydston and López-González’s (2005) results indicated that the 

availability of areas meeting females’ environmental requirements may be an important factor 

limiting the distribution of northern jaguars. 

Grigione et al. (2009) conducted a mapping study to construct a blueprint of priority 

conservation areas for jaguars, as well as ocelots and jaguarundis, in the U.S. – Mexico border 

region. For the jaguar in the western bioregion of the study area (including Arizona, New 

Mexico, Sonora, Chihuahua, and Sinaloa), four units were identified (two very high priority, one 

high priority, and one low priority), including two in the U.S. and two in Mexico [totaling 

102,530 km2

(39,587mi2)]. Within these four units, currently 19.8 percent of the area has any 

form of protection (Grigione et al. 2009). A very high priority corridor was identified between 

the two Mexican units; otherwise the connections between the units are poorly understood and 

consequently two corridors needing further study were identified. Two underpasses were 

identified as being needed in northern Sonora, where jaguars are believed to be crossing roads as 

they disperse north. The authors conclude that the region to the south of Arizona and New 

Mexico is especially critical for the recovery of the jaguar in the southwestern U.S. because the 

source population is likely in central Sonora. Citing Brown and López-González (2001) and List 

(2007), Grigione et al. (2009) explain that to reach the U.S., jaguars need to travel through 

Sonora and Chihuahua, where there are many challenges to jaguar survival and movement, 

including the U.S.–Mexico border fence. The Sky Islands Unit was ranked as “very high 

priority” for a conservation area for jaguars (Grigione et al. 2009:83). 
108

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Threats 

In addition to the numerous anthropogenic threats affecting jaguars, the species has a number of 

intrinsic biological factors that limit its recovery, including being a K-selected species (i.e., 

species with large body size, long life expectancy, and the production of fewer offspring, which 

often require extensive parental care until they mature) and having large spatial requirements. 

Small and isolated jaguar populations do not appear to be highly persistent (Haag et al. 2010, 

Rabinowitz and Zeller 2010). However, persistence of relatively small populations appears to 

increase with connectivity to other populations and reduction of threats within a corridor 

(Rabinowitz and Zeller 2010). The prospects for the jaguar being self-sustaining in the wild are 

favorable; however conservation of key jaguar habitats and populations is critical to this 

sustainability (FWS 2012b). 

Illegal killing of jaguars is one of the two most significant threats to the jaguar (Medellin 2009, 

Chávez and Ceballos 2006, Medellín et al. 2002, Núñez et al. 2002, Nowell and Jackson 1996) 

and, to recover jaguars, likely requires the most immediate response (FWS 2012a). Experts from 

throughout the jaguar range agree that one of the most severe causes of mortality is the direct 

hunting of jaguars, either because jaguars have caused some conflict by killing livestock or to 

sell the jaguar as a trophy or its skin or teeth (Medellin 2009). This illegal and indiscriminate 

killing eliminates hundreds or even thousands of jaguars each year in Latin America and must be 

controlled to reduce the risk of extinction (Medellin 2009). 

Range wide, habitat destruction and modification form the other of the two most significant 

threats to the jaguar (Medellin 2009, Chávez and Ceballos 2006, Medellín et al. 2002, Núñez et 

al. 2002, Nowell and Jackson 1996). To recover jaguars, addressing this threat of habitat loss 

requires immediate response. The jaguar is classified as “Near Threatened” on the Red List of 

the International Union for the Conservation (IUCN) due to a number of factors, including 

habitat loss and fragmentation of populations across portions of the range (Caso et al. 2008). 

Various factors, particularly habitat loss, have caused a considerable reduction in the historical 

range of the jaguar (Sanderson et al. 2002, Zeller 2007, Rabinowitz and Zeller 2010). Most loss 

of occupied range has occurred in the southern U.S., northeastern Mexico, northern Brazil, and 

southern Argentina (Sanderson et al. 2002). Deforestation rates are high in Latin America and 

fragmentation of forest habitat isolates jaguar populations so that jaguars are more vulnerable to 

human persecution (Nowell and Jackson 1996). Medellin et al. (2002) report that loss, 

fragmentation, and modification of jaguar habitat have contributed to population declines 

throughout much of the species’ range, including northern Mexico. 

Human population growth has both direct and indirect impacts on jaguar survival and mortality. 

For example, human growth and development tend to fragment habitat and isolate populations of 

jaguars and other wildlife. For carnivores in general, the impacts of high road density have been 

well documented and thoroughly reviewed (e.g., Noss et al. 1996, Carroll et al. 2001, as cited by 

Menke and Hayes 2003). Roads may have direct impacts to carnivores and carnivore habitats, 

including mortality caused by vehicles, disturbance, habitat fragmentation, changes in prey 

numbers or distribution, and provision of increased access for legal or illegal harvest (Menke and 

Hayes 2003, Colchero et al. 2010). These threats are relevant to jaguars throughout most of their 
109

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

range; however, no jaguars have been documented in collisions with vehicles in the U.S. despite 

the fact that they have documented to cross roads, including two lane highways in Arizona. For 

example, the same male jaguar has been photo-documented in both the Whetstone and Santa Rita 

mountains. This jaguar would have had to cross over or through a passage bneath State Route 82 or 

83 to move between the mountain ranges. 

Habitat fragmentation may disrupt original patterns of gene flow and lead to drift-induced 

differentiation among local population units and top predators, such as the jaguar, may be 

particularly susceptible to this effect, given their low population densities, leading to small 

effective sizes in local fragments (Haag et al. 2010). Large-scale habitat removal and 

fragmentation of once-contiguous habitat can cause the reduction of genetic diversity in jaguar 

populations (Haag et al. 2010). To avoid the negative demographic and genetic consequences of 

small population size caused by habitat fragmentation, connectivity should be restored to ensure 

gene flow is maintained (Haag et al. 2010). Citing a number of sources, Rabinowitz and Zeller 

(2010) explain that reduction or loss of genetic exchange leads to smaller effective population sizes, 

increased levels of genetic drift and inbreeding, and potential deleterious effects on sperm 

production, mating ability, female fecundity, and juvenile survival. Furthermore, they state that 

such effects eventually compromise adaptive potential, reduce fitness, and contribute to extinction 

risk for a population and, ultimately, for the species. To ensure genetic health and long-term 

viability of jaguars range-wide, it is critical to maintain gene flow among populations through 

maintaining and restoring connectivity. Corridors can provide one of the most basic requirements 

for species persistence–genetic exchange (Rabinowitz and Zeller 2010). Boydston and LópezGonzález (2005) suggest that range expansion to the north of eastern Sonora could help prevent 

genetic isolation and extinction of the northern jaguars and also increase chances for long-term 

survival of this species in the face of global anthropogenic changes. 

Overall, the threat of human encroachment cannot be eliminated, but through conservation 

planning and implementation efforts, it can be reduced. Conservation of key habitat areas is 

critical to the recovery of jaguars. There are many opportunities and methods (i.e., creation of 

new reserves, incentive programs, etc.) to continue to conserve jaguar habitat; however, they will 

require significant international, national, and local cooperation, as well as financial support. 

The jaguar is classified as “Near Threatened” on the Red List of the IUCN in part due to 

poaching of prey (Caso et al. 2008). According to experts across the jaguar range, hunting of the 

most important prey, such as peccaries and deer, is one of the primary factors negatively 

affecting the jaguar (Medellin 2009). An estimated 27 percent of jaguar range has a depleted 

wild prey base (WCS 2008 as cited by Caso et al. 2008). Illegal hunting of potential jaguar prey 

species is one of the main threats to long-term conservation of jaguars in northwestern Mexico 

(Rosas-Rosas 2006). Human population growth can put pressure on game populations that are 

used for human consumption. These same game populations are often prey for jaguars. 

Furthermore, overhunting of natural prey may cause an increase in jaguar predation on livestock 

and consequently increase human-jaguar conflicts, including continued negative attitudes toward 

jaguars and illegal killing of jaguars. 
110

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Jaguar Recovery Planning 

The species has a recovery priority number of 5C, meaning that it has a low potential for 

recovery with a relatively high degree of conflict. Recovery for the jaguar was originally 

addressed in Listed Cats of Texas and Arizona Recovery Plan (with Emphasis on the Ocelot)

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1990), but only general information and recommendations to 

assess jaguar status in the U.S. and Mexico, and protect and manage occupied and potential 

habitat in the U.S. were presented. No specific recovery recommendations or objectives for the 

jaguar were presented. In 2007, the FWS made a 4(f)(1) determination that development of a 

formal recovery plan at that time would not promote the conservation of the jaguar. The 

rationale for this determination was that for the purposes of formal recovery planning, the jaguar 

qualifies as an exclusively foreign species. The FWS was subsequently litigated on this 

determination and the presiding judge remanded the decision regarding recovery planning back 

to the FWS. Subsequently, in 2010, the FWS made a new determination that development of a 

recovery plan would contribute to jaguar conservation and that, therefore, the FWS should 

prepare a recovery plan. 

In 2012, a Recovery Outline for the jaguar (FWS 2012b) was finalized by the FWS. The outline, 

prepared by the Technical Subgroup of the Jaguar Recovery Team in conjunction with the 

Implementation Subgroup of the Jaguar Recovery Team and the FWS, serves as interim 

guidance for the FWS to direct recovery efforts, including recovery planning, for the jaguar until 

a full recovery plan is developed and approved. The Recovery Team is currently developing a 

draft recovery plan and thus, the Recovery Outline for the Jaguar represents the best available 

scientific information for this consultation. 

The goal for the Recovery Outline is to conserve and protect the jaguar and its habitat so that its 

long-term survival is secured and it can be considered for removal from the list of threatened and 

endangered species (delisted). Although the recovery outline does not include Recovery Criteria, 

the Preliminary Recovery Strategy does include eight Preliminary Recovery Objectives, which 

collectively describe the specific conditions under which the goals for recovery of the jaguar 

(i.e., delisting) will be met. These objectives are: 

1. Assess, protect, and restore sufficient habitat to support viable populations of jaguars in 

the two recovery units. 

2. Mediate or mitigate the effects of human population growth and development on jaguar 

survival and mortality where possible. 

3. Reduce direct human-caused (i.e., illegal and legal killing) mortality of jaguars. 

4. Reduce illegal hunting of jaguar prey and improve regulation of legal hunting where 

appropriate (i.e., in cases where hunting is leading to significant reductions of jaguar 

prey). 

5. Maintain or improve genetic fitness, demographic conditions, and health of the jaguar. 

6. Assure the long-term viability of jaguar conservation through partnerships, the 

development and application of incentives for landowners, application of existing 

regulations, and public education and outreach. 
111

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

7. Practice adaptive management in which recovery is monitored and recovery tasks are 

revised by the FWS in coordination with the Jaguar Recovery Team as new information 

becomes available. 

8. Support international efforts to ascertain the status and conservation needs of the jaguar 

in the two recovery units. 

The 2012 Recovery Outline for the Jaguar described two recovery units for the jaguar across its 

range, the Northwestern Recovery Unit (NRU; 222,197 km2; 85,791 mi2) (see Figure J-1 below) 

and the Pan American Recovery Unit (PARU; 14.9 million km2; 5.75 million mi2) (FWS 2012a, 

p. 58). The analyses in this BO laregely focus on the NRU. Please note that the boundaries and 

areal extent of the NRU were revised by sanderson and Fisher (2013b); these revisions are 

described in the subsequent section. Recovery units are subunits of the listed species’ habitat 

that are geographically or otherwise identifiable and essential to the recovery of the species 

(FWS 2012a, p. 20). Recovery units for the jaguar are further divided into core, secondary, and 

peripheral areas (FWS 2012a, pp. 20–23). Core areas have both persistent verified records of 

jaguar occurrence over time and recent evidence of reproduction. Secondary areas are those that 

contain jaguar habitat with either or both historical or recent records of jaguar presence with no 

recent record or very few records of reproduction. In peripheral areas, most historical jaguar 

records are sporadic, and there is no or minimal evidence of long-term presence or reproduction 

that might indicate colonization or sustained use of these areas by jaguars. 

Northwestern Recovery Unit (NRU) and Northwestern Management Unit (NMU) 

The NRU is approximately 192,339 km2(74,262 mi2); with [7,663 km2(2,959 mi2)] in the U.S. 

and 184,676 km2 [71,304 mi2

] in Mexico) (sanderson and Fisher 2013b). Table J-1, below, 

describes the subdivisions within the NRU. The Northern Management Unit (NMU), which 

contains the U.S and Mexico portions of the Borderlands Secondary Area, lies within the NRU 

and is approximately 32,057 km2

(12,337 mi2); with 7,663 km

2 (2,959 mi2

) in the U.S. and 

24,394 km2 (9,419 mi2) in Mexico (see Figure J-1 and Table J-1). 

Table J-1: Modeled habitat and potential jaguar numbers of jaguars in the Northwestern 

Management Unit (NMU) and Northwestern Recovery Unit (NRU)

(Sanderson and Fisher 2013b) 

Population Subunit

Former Subunit Name 

(Sanderson and Fisher 

2013a)

Estimate of Habitat Area Estimated number 

km of potential jaguars 2 mi2

Jalisco Core Area MX Sinaloa Sub-Population 44,510 17,185 1,410

Sinaloa Secondary Area MX North Sinaloa Connector 

Area 39,501 15,251 1,198

Sonora Core Area MX Sonora Sub-Population 76,271 29,448 1,670

Borderlands Secondary 

Area/NMU – Mexico

MX Northern Sonora 

Connector Area 24,394 9,419 135

Borderlands Secondary 

Area/NMU – United States US South of I-10 Highway1

7,663 2,959 27

NMU– Mexico 24,394 9,419 135

NMU – United States 7,663 2,959 27

NMU - Total 32,057 12,337 162
112

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

NRU – Mexico 184,676 71,304 4,413

NRU – United States 7,663 2,959 27

NRU – Total 192,339 74,262 4,440

1 US North of I-10 Highway subunit (Sanderson and Fisher 2013a) has been removed from consideration.

Within the U.S., jaguar habitat in the NRU primarily occurs on tribal (Tohono O’odham Nation) 

lands and federally and state owned lands, including those managed by the U.S. Forest Service 

(Coronado National Forest), Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, FWS, and 

Arizona State Land Department. The remaining non-state and non-federal lands within the NRU 

are privately owned. Within Mexico, jaguar habitat within the NRU primarily occurs on 

privately owned, ejido (communal), and indigenous community (i.e., Yaqui) lands. Although 

there are natural protected areas (ANP) designated by the Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales 

Protegidas (CONANP [National Commission for Natural Protected Areas]) within the NRU, 

they overlap privately-owned and communal lands. The protected status of these ANPs does not 

change the land ownership status but instead imposes use restrictions on the lands. At this time, 

at least eight Federally recognized protected areas have been established within the NRU in 

Mexico that provide for jaguar protection (FWS 2012b).

As mentioned above, the U.S. lands within the Borderlands Secondary area of the Northwestern 

Recovery Unit are also located within the Northwestern Management Unit. Management units, 

as described in the Recovery Outline, are areas within a recovery unit that might require different 

management, be managed by different entities, or encompass different populations (Jaguar 

Recovery Team 2012:40). The U.S. lands located within the NMU simply acknowledge the 

existence of different species management on either side of the International Border with 

Mexico. This differening title for the the U.S. lands as part of the NMU does not mean that the 

habitat in United States has any less significance within the secondary area of the recovery unit. 

Also, and important to note, is that populations at the edge of a species’ range play a role in 

maintaining the total genetic diversity of a species (Jaguar Recovery Team 2012a, pp. 19–20); in 

some cases, these peripheral populations persist the longest as fragmentation and habitat loss 

impact the total range (Channell and Lomolino 2000, pp. 84–85). The United States and 

northwestern Mexico represent the northernmost extent of the jaguar’s range, with populations 

persisting in distinct ecological conditions (xeric, or extremely dry, habitat) that occur nowhere 

else in the species’ range (Sanderson et al. 2002, entire). Peripheral populations such as these 

are an important genetic resource in that they may be beneficial to the protection of evolutionary 

processes and the environmental systems that are likely to generate future evolutionary diversity 

(Lesica and Allendorf 1995, entire). This may be particularly important considering the potential 

threats of global climate change. Citing Young and Clarke (2000), Grigione et al. (2009) suggest 

that conservation of peripheral populations, such as the jaguar in the northernmost portion of its 

range, plays a role in maintaining the total genetic heterozygosity of a species. The ability for 

jaguars in the NRU to utilize physical and biological habitat features in the Northern 

Management Unit (NMU; a sub-area of the NRU, as described below) is ecologically important 

to the recovery of the species; therefore, maintaining connectivity to Mexico is essential to the 

conservation of the jaguar (FWS 2012b). 
113

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Proposed Critical Habitat

We are proposing six units as critical habitat for the jaguar. The critical habitat areas we describe 

below constitute our current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat 

for the jaguar. The six units we have proposed as critical habitat are: (1) Baboquivari Unit 

divided into subunits (1a) Baboquivari-Coyote Subunit, including the Northern Baboquivari, 

Saucito, Quinlan, and Coyote Mountains, and (1b) the Southern Baboquivari Subunit; (2) 

Atascosa Unit, including the Pajarito, Atascosa, and Tumacacori Mountains; (3) Patagonia Unit, 

including the Patagonia, Santa Rita, Empire, and Huachuca Mountains, and the Canelo and 

Grosvenor Hills; (4) Whetstone Unit, divided into subunits (4a) Whetstone Subunit, (4b) 

Whetstone-Santa Rita Subunit, and (4c) Whetstone-Huachuca Subunit; (5) Peloncillo Unit, 

including the Peloncillo Mountains both in Arizona and New Mexico; and (6) San Luis Unit, 

including the northern extent of the San Luis Mountains at the New Mexico-Mexico border. The 

units affected by the proposed action, Units 3 and 4, are described below. 

Unit 3: Patagonia Unit

Unit 3 consists of 148,364 ha (366,615 ac) in the Patagonia, Santa Rita, and Huachuca 

Mountains, as well as the Canelo Hills, in Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise counties, Arizona. 

Unit 3 is generally bounded by Interstate 19 to the west; Interstate 10 to the north; Cienega Creek 

and Highways 83, 90, and 92 to the east, including the eastern slopes of the Empire Mountains; 

and the U.S.-Mexico border to the south. Land ownership within the unit includes 

approximately 107,471 ha (265,566 ac) of Federal lands; 11,847 ha (29,274 ac) of Arizona State 

lands; and 29,046 ha (71,775 ac) of private lands. The Federal land is administered by the 

Coronado National Forest, Bureau of Land Management, and Fort Huachuca. We consider the 

Patagonia Unit occupied at the time of listing (37 FR 6476; March 30, 1972) based on the 1965 

record from the Patagonia Mountains, and it is currently occupied based on a series of confirmed 

sightings from 2011 through August 2013. The mountain ranges within this unit contain all 

primary constituent elements of the physical or biological feature essential to the conservation of 

the jaguar. 

The primary land uses within Unit 3 include military activities associated with Fort Huachuca, as 

well as Federal forest management activities, border-related activities, grazing, and recreational 

activities throughout the year, including, but not limited to, hiking, camping, birding, horseback 

riding, picnicking, sightseeing, and hunting. Special management considerations or protections 

needed within the unit address human disturbances through such activities as military ground 

maneuvers and increased human presence in remote locations through mining and development 

activities, construction of impermeable fences, and widening or construction of roadways, power 

lines, or pipelines to ensure all PCEs remain compatible with jaguar use. 

Subunit 4a: Whetstone Subunit 

Subunit 4a consists of 25,284 ha (62,478 ac) in the Whetstone Mountains in Pima, Santa Cruz, 

and Cochise Counties, Arizona. Subunit 4a is generally bounded by Cienega Creek to the west, 
114

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Interstate 10 to the north, Highway 90 to the east, and Highway 82 to the south. Land ownership 

within the subunit includes approximately 16,066 ha (39,699 ac) of Federal lands; 5,445 ha 

(13,455 ac) of Arizona State lands; and 3,774 ha (9,325 ac) of private lands. The Federal land is 

administered primarily by the Coronado National Forest. We consider the Whetstone Subunit 

occupied at the time of listing (37 FR 6476; March 30, 1972) based on photographs taken in 

2011, and it may be currently occupied although the animal recently photographed in the Santa 

Ritas is the same male photographed in the Whetstones in 2011. The mountain range within this 

subunit contains all primary constituent elementsessential to the conservation of the jaguar, 

except for connectivity to Mexico. 

The primary land uses within Subunit 4a include Federal forest management activities, grazing, 

and recreational activities throughout the year, including, but not limited to, hiking, camping, 

birding, horseback riding, picnicking, sightseeing, and hunting. Special management 

considerations or protections needed within the subunit addresshuman disturbances through 

development activities, and widening or construction of roadways, power lines, or pipelines to 

ensure all PCEs remain compatiblecompatible with jaguar use. 

Subunit 4b: Whetstone-Santa Rita Subunit

Subunit 4b consists of 5,143 ha (12,710 ac), including the Empire Mountains, between the Santa 

Rita Mountains and northern extent of the Whetstone Mountains in Pima County, Arizona. 

Subunit 4b is generally bounded by (but does not include) the eastern slopes of the Empire 

Mountains to the west, a line running roughly 6 km (3.7 mi) south of Interstate 10 to the north, 

the western slopes of the Whetstone Mountains to the east, and Stevenson Canyon to the south. 

Land ownership within the subunit includes approximately 532 ha (1,313 ac) of Federal lands 

and 4,612 ha (11,396 ac) of Arizona State lands. According to the proposed rule, the WhetstoneSanta Rita Subunit provides connectivity from the Whetstone Mountains to Mexico and was not 

known to be occupied at the time of listing, but is essential to the conservation of the jaguar 

because it contributes to the species’ persistence by providing connectivity to occupied areas that 

support individuals during dispersal movements during cyclical expansion and contraction from 

the nearest core area and breeding population in the NRU (FWS 2012b). 

The primary land uses within Subunit 4b include grazing and recreational activities throughout 

the year, including, but not limited to, hiking, camping, birding, horseback riding, picnicking, 

sightseeing, and hunting. 

Subunit 4c: Whetstone-Huachuca Subunit

Subunit 4c consists of 8,026 ha (19,832 ac) between the Huachuca Mountains and southern 

extent of the Whetstone Mountains in Santa Cruz and Cochise Counties, Arizona. Subunit 4c is 

generally bounded by Highway 83 to the west; Highway 82 to the north; Highway 90 to the east; 

and up to but not including the Huachuca Mountains to the south. Land ownership within the 

subunit includes approximately 1,654 ha (4,088 ac) of Federal lands; 2,981 ha (7,366 ac) of 

Arizona State lands; and 3,391 ha (8,379 ac) of private lands. The Federal land is administered 

by the Coronado National Forest, Bureau of Land Management, and Fort Huachuca. According 
115

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

to the proposed rule, the Whetstone-Huachuca Subunit provides connectivity from the Whetstone 

Mountains to Mexico and was not occupied at the time of listing, but is essential to the 

conservation of the jaguar because it contributes to the species’ persistence by providing 

connectivity to occupied areas that support individuals during dispersal movements during 

cyclical expansion and contraction of the nearest core area and breeding population in the NRU 

(FWS 2012b). 

The primary land uses within Subunit 4c include military activities associated with Fort 

Huachuca, as well as Federal forest management activities, grazing, and recreational activities 

throughout the year, including, but not limited to, hiking, camping, birding, horseback riding, 

picnicking, sightseeing, and hunting. 

Models Used for Proposing Critical Habitat 

When we are determining which areas should be designated as critical habitat, the FWS’s 

primary source of information is generally the information developed during the listing process 

for the species. Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the species, 

articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties, 

scientific status surveys and studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or 

experts’ opinions or personal knowledge.

The criteria used by the FWS to identify critical habitat included reviewing available information 

and supporting data that pertained to the habitat requirements of the jaguar. Much of this 

information was compiled in the Recovery Outline for the Jaguar (Jaguar Recovery Team 2012, 

entire) and Digital Mapping in Support of Recovery Planning for the Northern Jaguar report 

(Sanderson and Fisher 2011:1–11), which the FWS regarded as the best available information for 

the jaguar and its habitat needs in the northern portion of its range. Additionally, the FWS relied 

on information provided through modeling exercises for Arizona (Hatten et al. 2005) and New 

Mexico (Menke and Hayes 2003; Robinson et al. 2006) to further refine the habitat features 

available in the United States. Because jaguars are secretive animals and generally tend to avoid 

highly disturbed areas (Quigley and Crawshaw 1992; Hatten et al. 2005:1025), human density 

was afactor considered in jaguar habitat modeling exercises for Arizona (Hatten et al. 2005, p. 

1025), New Mexico (Menke and Hayes 2003:9–13; Robinson et al. 2006, pp. 10, 15, 18–20), 

and the habitat model developed by Sanderson and Fisher (2011:5–11) for the northwestern Mexico 

and the U.S.-Mexico borderlands area. 

The habitat model developed by Sanderson and Fisher (2011:5–11) included a human influence 

index (HII) criterion. HII values, calculated worldwide by combining eight input layers (human 

population density per square km, railroads, major roads, navigable rivers, coastlines, stable 

nighttime lighting, urban polygons, and land cover) can range from 0 to 64, with 0 representing 

no human influence and 64 representing the maximum human influence possible (see SEDAC 

2012 for more information on how HII was calculated worldwide). Within the northwestern 

Mexico and the U.S.-Mexico borderlands region considered for their habitat model, Sanderson 

and Fisher (2011, pp. 5–11) found that roughly 90 percent of the 333 jaguar records used in their 

model were located in areas where the HII was less than 30 out of 64. They therefore considered 
116

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

lands with an HII of less than 30 as potential jaguar habitat within their modeling exercise, while 

lands with an HII equal to or greater than 30 were excluded. Similarly, in our analysis of 130 

reports of jaguar locations in the United States, we found that approximately 99 percent occurred 

in areas where the HII was less than 20 (<20). Please note that this was stated as 20 or less (≤20)

in the proposed rule (FWS2012b); the correct analysis was employed during preparation of the 

revised proposed rule (FWS 2013) Therefore, based on this information, the FWS identified 

areas in which the HII calculated over 1-square km (0.4-square mi) is less than 20 as an essential 

component of the physical or biological feature essential for the conservation of the jaguar in the 

United States. These areas are characterized by minimal to no human population density, no 

major roads, or no stable nighttime lighting over any 1-square km (0.4-square mi) area. 

Primary Constituent Elements for Jaguar Critical Habitat 

The primary constituent elements of critical habitat essential to the conservation of jaguar within 

areas of expansive open spaces in the southwestern United States at least 84 to 100 km2(32 to 37 

mi2) in size. The primary constituent elements are those which: 

1. Provide connectivity to Mexico; 

2. Contain adequate levels of native prey species, including deer and collard peccary 

(javelina), as well as medium-sized prey such as coatis, skunks, raccoons, or jackrabbits; 

3. Include surface water sources available within 20 km (12.4 mi) of each other; 

4. Contain 1 to 50 percent woody species canopy cover within Madrean evergreen 

woodland, generally recognized by a mixture of oak, juniper, and pine trees on the 

landscape, or semidesert grassland vegetation communities, with a woody species 

overstory and an understory usually characterized by Pleuraphis mutica (tobosagrass) or 

Bouteloua eriopoda (black grama) along with other grasses; 

5. Are characterized by intermediately, moderately, or highly rugged terrain; and 

6. Are characterized by minimal to no human population density, no major roads, or no 

stable nighttime lighting over any 1-square-km (0.4-square-mi) area (expressed as an HII 

of less than 20). 

Jaguar Recovery Planning in Relation to Critical Habitat 

Jaguar habitat in the U.S. – Mexico borderlands area is part of the secondary area of the NMU 

within the NRU for the jaguar (see Figure J-1 and Table J-1) (FWS 2012a:58). The United 

States portion of the NRU is considered a secondary area that provides a recovery function 

benefitting the overall recovery unit (FWS 2012a:40, 42). By Jaguar Recovery Team guidelines 

(FWS 2012a), a secondary area for jaguars is an area meeting the following conditions: (1) 

compared to core areas, secondary areas are generally smaller, likely contain fewer jaguars, 

maintain jaguars at lower densities, and exhibit more sporadic current and historical records of 
117

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

jaguars; some of the secondary areas may not have not been surveyed through the use of defined 

survey protocols, thus resulting in the unknown current status of jaguars in some secondary 

areas; (2) there is no or little evidence of recent reproduction (within 10 years); and (3) quality 

and quantity of jaguar habitat is lower compared to core areas. Jaguar habitat is likely less 

optimal due to one or more or a combination of these variables important for jaguar presence, 

including increased human impact, smaller amount of contiguous habitat, different vegetation 

types, and lower prey populations. The Jaguar Recovery Team hypothesized that secondary 

areas may contribute to jaguar persistence by providing habitat to support jaguars during 

dispersal movements, by providing small patches of habitat (perhaps in some cases with a few 

resident jaguars), and as areas for cyclic expansion and contraction of the core areas (FWS 

2012a). 

Because such a small portion of the jaguar’s range occurs in the United States, it is anticipated 

that recovery of the entire species will rely primarily on actions that occur outside of the United 

States; activities that may adversely or beneficially affect jaguars in the United States are less 

likely to affect recovery than activities in core areas of their range (FWS 2012a:38). 

 

However, according to the proposed rule, specific areas within this secondary area that provide 

the physical and biological features essential to jaguar habitat can contribute to the species’ 

persistence and, therefore, overall conservation. As described in the Recovery Outline for the 

Jaguar, the Northwestern Recovery Unit is essential for the conservation of the species; 

therefore, consideration of the spatial and biological dynamics that allow this unit to function and 

that benefit the overall unit is prudent. Providing connectivity between the United States and 

Mexico is a key element to maintaining those processes. 

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE - JAGUAR 

The environmental baseline includes past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private 

actions in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal actions in the action 

area that have undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and the impact of State and 

private actions that are contemporaneous with the consultation process. The environmental 

baseline defines the current status of the species and its habitat in the action area to provide a 

platform to assess the effects of the action now under consultation. 

In the environmental baseline analysis, we discuss the current condition of the critical habitat 

units in the action area, the factors responsible for that condition, and the conservation roles of 

the units. In particular, we discuss the relationship of the affected units in the action area to the 

entire proposed critical habitat with respect to the conservation of the jaguar. 

Action Area

The action area is defined as the area within which effects to the listed species and its critical 

habitat (if any is designated) are likely to occur and is not limited to the actual footprint of the 

proposed action. The proposed project falls within the northern-most secondary area of the 

NRU, or the NMU, as defined in the Jaguar Recovery Outline (FWS 2012) and at least one 
118

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

jaguar has recently occurred near the project area. For the purposes of the jaguar analysis, we 

use the Forest Service Action Area definition (i.e., defined by hydrology). 

Terrain, Vegetation Communities, and Climate in the Action Area 

The Action Area subsection of the Description of the Proposed Conservation Measures section, 

above, includes descriptions of the terrain, vegetation communities, and climate in the action 

area. 

Status of the Species within the Action Area

Life History and Habitat

Life history of the jaguar is described above in the Status of the Species. Generally, life history 

elements are similar throughout their range, although some, such as diet and vegetation 

community use, vary by region (see Status of the Species). 

Distribution and Abundance 

Confirmed jaguar detections have recently occurred within and near the proposed project and action 

area. The detections were from trail cameras placed by resident hunters, the Arizona Game and 

Fish Department, and researchers from the University of Arizona – jaguar survey and monitoring 

project funded by the Department of Homeland Security via the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. All 

detections, captured by photographs at night, were located on lands administered by the Coronado 

National Forest within proposed critical habitat (Units 3 and 4). Analysis by jaguar experts of the 

comparison of rosette patterns concluded that the photographs are of the same male jaguar. The 

male jaguar photographed by a mountain lion hunter in the Whetstone Mountains (within 

proposed critical habitat Subunit 4 – Whetstone Unit) in November 2011 was later detected in 

the Santa Rita Mountains (within proposed critical habitat Unit 3 – Patagonia Unit) by the trail 

cameras. Detections of this male jaguar have occurred in the Santa Rita Mountains from 

September 2012 to October 2013. 

The Forest Service hypothesizes that this single resident male jaguar has established a territory that 

includes most of the Santa Rita Mountains (which includes the proposed action area ) and possibly 

the Whetstone Mountains as well (from the June 2012 BA and February 2013 Supplemental BA). 

To move between the Whetstone and Santa Rita mountains, the male jaguar would have had to 

cross a two-lane highway, possibly State Route 83, although its exact movement pattern is 

unknown. 

Threats 

Threats to the jaguar in the action area are generally similar to threats to the species throughout 

its range as described under “Status of the Species”; however, in the United States, the threat of 

illegal killing is not currently thought to be a problem (FWS 2012a). Other threats to jaguars in 

this region are international border issues such as: (1) infrastructure along and near the U.S. - 
119

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Mexico border, including pedestrian and vehicle barriers and towers and their associated roads 

and lighting; and (2) illegal and U.S. Border Patrol traffic (pedestrian and vehicle). Fences 

designed to prevent the passage of humans (i.e., pedestrian barriers) also prevent passage of 

jaguars. Other infrastructure (e.g., vehicle barriers, towers, roads, and lighting) and human 

activity may limit jaguar movement across the border, but it is uncertain if and how much this is 

affecting that movement. McCain and Childs (2008) identified open-pit mines as a threat to 

jaguars in the species core habitats in the southwestern U.S. specifically mentioning the 

Patagonia and Santa Rita mountains; this threat was reiterated in the BA. Connectivity to 

Mexico is essential for maintaining jaguars in the NMU in Arizona and New Mexico. 

Proposed Critical Habitat within the Action Area as Defined by the Forest Service 

Current Condition of Proposed Critical Habitat - The action area as defined by the Forest 

Service occurs within the Patagonia Unit (Unit 3) (Figure J-2) which consists of 148,364 ha 

(366,615 ac) in the Patagonia, Santa Rita, Empire, and Huachuca Mountains, as well as the 

Canelo Hills, in Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties, Arizona. The mountain ranges within 

this unit contain all primary constituent elements essential to the conservation of the jaguar. 

The action area is situated west of the Whetstone-Santa Rita Unit (Subunit 4b) (Figure 2) which 

consists of 5,143 ha (12,710 ac) between the Santa Rita Mountains and northern extent of the 

Whetstone Mountains in Pima County, Arizona. The Whetstone-Santa Rita Subunit may provide 

connectivity from the Whetstone Mountains to Mexico through Unit 3, was not known to be 

occupied at the time of listing (FWS 2012b, FWS 2013),and is not known to have ever been used 

by jaguars. 

Factors Responsible for the Current Condition of Proposed Critical Habitat - The Patagonia 

Unit was proposed as critical habitat because areas such as the Santa Rita Mountains contain the 

primary constituent elements essential to the conservation of the jaguar. In the jaguar habitat 

model developed for northwestern Mexico and the U.S.-Mexico borderlands area, Sanderson and 

Fisher (2011:11) described how low human influence is perhaps the most important feature 

defining jaguar habitat, as jaguars most often avoid areas with too much human pressure. The 

Santa Rita Mountains, where the proposed project is located, was identified by the model as 

having HII values between 14 and 18. As stated above, an HII value of less than 20 was the 

parameter identified as an essential component for the conservation of the jaguar in the United 

States (FWS 2013). 

According to the proposed rule, connectivity between the United States and Mexico is necessary 

if viable habitat for the jaguar is to be maintained (FWS 2012b, FWS 2013). The intent of 

Subunit 4b is to connect Subunit 4a to Mexico via Unit 3, although connectivity is also provided 

through Subunit 4c, which is not affected by the proposed action. Jaguar habitat and the features 

essential to their conservation are threatened by the direct and indirect effects of increasing 

human influence into remote, rugged areas, as well as projects and activities that sever 

connectivity to Mexico. These may include, but are not limited to: significant increases in 

border-related activities, both legal and illegal; widening or construction of roadways, power 

lines, or pipelines; construction or expansion of human developments; mineral extraction and 
120

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

mining operations; military activities in remote locations; and human disturbance related to 

increased activities in or access to remote areas (FWS 2012b, FWS 2013). 

Conservation Role of the Proposed Critical Habitat Units – The FWS considers the Patagonia 

Unit 3 to have been occupied at the time of listing based on the 1965 record from the Patagonia 

Mountains. The Patagonia Unit is currently occupied based on the series of recent jaguar 

sightings in the Whetstone and Santa Rita Mountains (see above). The mountain ranges within 

this unit contain all primary constituent elements essential to the conservation of the jaguar. 

Connectivity between the United States and Mexico was referenced throughout the proposed 

critical habitat rule as essential for the conservation of jaguars. Therefore, the intent of the 

proposed rule was to provide connectivity of Subunit 4a to Mexico through Unit 3 via Subunits 

4b and 4c, although there are no records indicating that either of these subunits have been used 

by jaguars. 

Past and Ongoing Federal Actions in the Action Area 

The respective Environmental Baseline sections for affected species describe completed 

consultations for past and ongoing Federal actions in the action area. Three projects have 

undergone formal section 7 consultation for effects to jaguar in southern Arizona,, but there have 

been no previous consultations on proposed critical habitat. Incidental take of one jaguar has 

been authorized and no jeopardy opinions have been issued. A summary of these consultations 

is below: 

1. Biological Opinion on Nationwide U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service-Wildlife Services (USDA, APHIS-WS) Activities on the 

endangered Jaguar (Consultation Number 000194RO issued on June 22, 1999) 

This consultation analyzed the effects of USDA, APHIS-WS’ national animal damage control 

activities on jaguars. Adverse effects to jaguars could occur from certain animal damage control 

methods, including the use of leg-hold and box traps, snares, M-44s, etc. We determined that the 

proposed action was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of jaguars and anticipated 

that, due to animal damage control activities, there would be an undeterminable level of take as a 

result of harassment and injury, and the take of one jaguar as the result of direct injury or 

mortality. The anticipated level of take was considered to be exceeded if animal damage control 

activities are directed at jaguars, or if one jaguar is unintentionally trapped, injured, or killed. To 

minimize incidental take, a number of reasonable and prudent measures were included in the 

biological opinion. To date, no incidental take has been documented resulting from WS’ 

program. 

2. Biological Opinion on the Pedestrian Fence Proposed Along the U.S. and Mexico Border 

near Sasabe, Naco, and Douglas (Consultation number 22410-2007-F-0416 issued 

August 29, 2007) 

This consultation addressed the effects of DHS’s construction of a pedestrian fence (and other 

associated activities such as road construction and maintenance) along the U.S./Mexico 
121

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

international border near Sasabe, Pima County; Nogales, Santa Cruz County; and near Naco and 

Douglas, Cochise County. Some pedestrian fence segments that were constructed in these three 

areas were included in this consultation, while others did not undergo section 7 consultation. 

Specifically, pedestrian fence segments were constructed in Sasabe (7 mi, all of which were 

included in this consultation), Nogales (about 6 mi, roughly 2 of which were included in this 

consultation), Naco (about 25 mi, 15 of which were in this consultation), and Douglas (about 17 

mi, 7 of which were included in this consultation). Adverse effects to jaguars were expected to 

occur from the proposed action by impeding jaguar movement between Mexico and the U.S., 

disturbing jaguars, and degrading their habitat. We determined that the proposed action was not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of jaguars and no incidental take was anticipated. 

Conservation measures, including funding for the implementation of jaguar recovery actions, 

were included to help offset the effects of the action on jaguars. 

3. Biological Opinion on Secure Border Initiative (SBInet) Tucson West Tower Project, Ajo, 

Tucson, Casa Grande, Nogales, and Sonoita Stations Area of Operation, U.S. Border 

Patrol, Tucson Sector, Arizona (Consultation number 22410-2008-F-0373 issued 

September 4, 2008) 

This consultation addressed the effects of the construction, operation, and maintenance of 

communication and sensor towers, roads, and mobile surveillance systems, as well as the 

deployment of unattended ground sensors. Adverse effects to jaguars were expected to occur 

from the proposed action by disturbing jaguars and degrading their habitat. We determined that 

the proposed action was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of jaguars and no 

incidental take was anticipated. Conservation measures, including funding for jaguar 

monitoring, were included to help offset the effects of the action on jaguars. 

In addition to the aforementioned activities, DHS/CBP has constructed a number of vehicle 

barriers and pedestrian fences in the action area that have not undergone formal consultation. 

Furthermore, CBP – Tucson Sector regularly conducts patrol activities within the action area that 

may affect jaguars and, with the exception of patrol activities associated with the Tucson West 

Towers Project, have not undergone formal consultation. 

Under section 10 of the Act, which prescribes permits for scientific purposes or incidental take 

while carrying out lawful activities, the following has been authorized for specific approved 

activities of the Arizona Game and Fish Department: 1) incidental take of one jaguar in the form 

of mortality or harm, and 2) unlimited take in the form of harass. 

EFFECTS OF THE ACTION - JAGUAR 

The effects of the action refer to the direct and indirect effects of an action on the species or 

critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated or interdependent 

with that action (50 CFR §402.02). Indirect effects occur later in time but are reasonably certain 

to occur. Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger action and depend on the larger 

action for their justification. Interdependent actions are those that have no independent utility 

apart from the action under consideration (50 CFR §402.02). In the effects of the action 
122

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

analysis, we also characterize the direct and indirect effects of the action and those of interrelated 

and interdependent actions on the proposed critical habitat. We describe how the primary 

constituent elements or habitat qualities essential to the conservation of the species are likely to 

be affected and, in turn, how that will influence the function and conservation role of the affected 

critical habitat unit(s). 

Effects of the Action on the Jaguar 

As analyzed at length in the BA, Supplemental BA, and Second Supplemental BA, and 

supported by additional analyses below, the proposed project will result in degradation of jaguar 

habitat and disturbance to jaguars. Construction and operations of the mine, including the 

associated roads, will result in removal, destruction, and degradation of jaguar habitat and jaguar 

prey habitat and is likely to disturb jaguars, causing changes in, among other things, their habitat 

use and movement patterns. Conservation measures included in the project description may help 

offset adverse effects to jaguars to some extent. 

1. Project Construction 

The June 2012 BA defined the project area (BA Figure 3) as all areas in which any ground 

disturbance would take place as a result of the proposed project, including the mine pit, waste 

rock piles, tailings, access roads, utility corridors, and on-site facilities (i.e., the mine “footprint” 

or area within the security fence plus roads, corridors, and trails). The BA indicated that 7,016 

acres of land would be directly disturbed. The acreage of direct disturbance was later refined to 

5,421 acres, which includes areas within the security fence (4,228 acres), the primary access road 

(226 acres), the utility line corridor (889 acres), decommissioned or new forest roads (59 acres), 

and the rerouted Arizona National Scenic Trail and trailheads (19 acres). The affected area 

appears in Figure J-2. 

Vegetation types within this area are Madrean evergreen woodland and semidesert grassland, 

both important vegetation types for jaguars in the NMU; and both xero- and hydroriparian. 

Therefore, the project will result in long term (30 years, after which the perimeter fence will be 

removed), direct effects to 7,016 acres (perimeter fence, roads, trails, and ROW) and the 

permanent removal of about 5,401 acres of jaguar habitat (security fence, new roads, and ROW; 

20 acres of decommissioned roads are omitted from the calculation permanent effects). 

Although we do not know the home range size of jaguars in Arizona, home ranges in Sonora 

range from 84 to 200 km2(20,757 to 49,421 acres). There will be a 7,016-acre temporal loss of 

up to approximately 14.2 to 33.8 percent of a jaguar home range. In the future, once the 

perimeter fence has been removed, the 5,401-acre will be approximately 10.9 percent to 26.0 

percent of a jaguar home range, with slightly lesser percentages of affected acreage if 

reclamation succeeds in reestablishing sufficient permanent canopy cover. It is also likely that 

the effects are slightly overestimated due to the fact that not all of the 889 acres of utility ROW 

are within the Madrean evergreen woodland or semidesert grassland vegetation types; the far 

westernmost portion is within the Arizona upland subdivision vegetation type, if not within 

human-disturbed habitats such as other, existing ROWs and similar features. Again, these are 
123

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

direct effects associated with the footprint of various mine features; indirect effects (light, noise, 

traffic, etc.) are discussed in subsequent sections. Regardless of the exact, directly-affected 

acreage, the jaguar known to be in the northern Santa Rita Mountains recently will most likely 

lose some portion of its home range. The extent of that loss is unknown since the animal’s home 

range has not been determined. 

Throughout most of the jaguar distribution, we know that home ranges most often overlap 

(Seymour 1989); however, we have not documented this overlap in Arizona so do not know 

whether the project footprint will impact additional jaguar home ranges. The definition of home 

range varies, but it is generally considered the area over which an animal normally travels, 

searches for food, and cares for young. Given the recent, continuous use of the Santa Rita 

Mountains by a male jaguar, we hypothesize that he has established a home range in the U.S. that 

encompasses these mountains. Due to loss of habitat and additional human disturbance near the 

project area (e.g. lights, noises, etc. - see below for further discussion), the male jaguar detected 

in the Santa Rita Mountains will most likely adjust its home range southward. 

In addition to eliminating jaguar habitat, the project will also result in the direct removal of 

jaguar prey habitat, leading to a reduced prey base for jaguars. According to AGFD (2012), the 

proposed project will result in the estimated loss of 14 white-tailed deer and 56 collared peccary 

(javelina), both key prey species for jaguar. This loss was calculated by multiplying the average 

density of these species per square mile by the total square miles then anticipated to be directly 

affected by the project. Also, while the AGFD estimate did not take into consideration the 

potential indirect impacts (future) of the project on prey species, it likely did not consider the 

postclosure state of the project area, at which point only the mine pit may remain unsuited to 

these prey species. 

Outside of the security fence, a perimeter barbed-wire fence will be constructed. The area 

between the security fence and the perimeter fence will not be subject to extensive ground 

disturbance. Given the influence of human and vehicular activity, noise, and lighting (see 

discussion below for information on effects of noise, lights, and traffic on jaguars) in the area 

between the security and perimeter fences, we anticipate that jaguars will likely avoid most or all 

of the area. 

Construction activities associated with all aspects of the project may disturb jaguars and cause 

them to flee and/or avoid the areas affected by light, noise, traffic, and other human activities. 

We are concerned that the jaguar recently and repeatedly detected in the vicinity of the proposed 

action has established a home range will be subject to such effects, but other jaguars occurring in 

the area in the future would also be affected. Dispersing jaguars or jaguars moving through the 

proposed project area may exhibit greater tolerance for some disturbance; however, we anticipate 

they would still generally avoid areas of high human influence. Once project construction is 

complete and operations are underway, jaguars would be excluded from the area as it will be 

devoid of habitat, as described above. Following operations, and presuming tailings piles are 

successfully revegetated, jaguars will be excluded from only the pit area. Jaguar avoidance of 

the project area, particularly the jaguar that has previously established a likely home range in the 

area, may cause them to shift southwest-, south-, or eastward, possibly into less suitable habitat.. 
124

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Such shifts could result in increased home range size and energy expenditure (due to presumed 

reductions in prey densities, risk for encounters with humans and vehicles (state highways are 

situated east and south of the mine, and the community of Sonoita is to the south-southeast), and 

potential competitors (i.e., cougars and other jaguars that have or may establish home ranges in 

adjacent areas), and other stresses. 

2. Lighting 

In addition to the direct project footprint, jaguars that occur within the vicinity of the project may 

be adversely affected by light associated with the project; this likelihood was explored in detail 

in the Second Supplemental BA (USFS 2013a). The area in and adjacent to the project area 

currently is dark at night because there are few artificial light sources and no developed areas to 

affect night sky views or the natural light conditions and cycles that are important to native 

plants and animals. Although general aspects of overall sky brightness have been studied 

(STEM Laboratory 2011) there is little other information on the current baseline night light 

levels in the area surrounding the proposed action. According to the Forest Service, the majority 

of the action area (as defined by the Forest Service) is relatively dark on moonless nights; the 

Border Patrol Station near Sonoita does illuminate the sky (STEM Laboratory 2011), but the 

lights of the Station and greater Tucson metropolitan area are blocked by the surrounding 

topography in the project area (Monrad 2012). Background lighting in the action area comes 

from a number of sources, including headlights from vehicles traveling at night along SR 83 and 

along forest roads; adjacent private lands; mine exploration activity; and an existing limestone 

quarry (Imerys) located just west of the proposed mine. The Imerys Quarry occupies 

approximately 22 acres and roughly twenty truckloads of materials depart the mine site via Santa 

Rita Road each day (Green Valley Recreation Hiking Club 2013). According to the Green 

Valley Recreation Hiking Club, the quarry operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week; however 

according to the BLM work occurs during the daytime only; however lights are operated 24 

hours per day. Lights from the Imerys Quarry are sufficiently bright to be remotely sensed (see 

Figures J-5 and J-6). The quarry likely influences sky glow, but the extent is not known. 

Horizontal light emanating from the quarry is unlikely to enter the Rosemont Mine site, as 

illustrated by the simulated extent of Rosemont’s northward-oriented horizontal light seen in 

Figure J-4. Should horizontal light from the Imerys Quarry already be illuminating the northern 

flanks of the topographic features that are blocking Rosemont’s northward-oriented lighting, the 

end result would be an area with appreciably more horizontal lighting than currently exists. The 

proposed action includes the use of night lighting which will originate from the Rosemont Mine 

site itself (i.e., mine-site illumination is needed for conducting mining operations, per Mine 

Safety and Health Administration standards) as well as from vehicle headlights on roads 

associated with the mine. 

Although Rosemont Copper Company has developed a light pollution mitigation plan, artificial 

illumination will increase light levels at night, which could impact jaguars, resulting in a wide 

variety of effects, including, but not limited to changes in behavior, habitat use, and movement 

patterns; disruption of dispersal movements, corridor use, and circadian clocks; and increased 

deaths due to in collision on roads (Beir 1995, Longcore and Rich 2004, Beier 2006). Artificial 

lighting will be persistent at night for 20 years of operation plus a period of reclamation and 
125

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

closure. In some areas, horizontal light will extend at least 12 miles beyond the project, and sky 

glow from the project is expected to be comparable to, but less than, sky glow from Ajo, Arizona 

(a town of about 3,300 people) (WestLand Resources, Inc, 2012). The light intensity will be 

highest at the mine and attenuate farther from the mine. Many areas within a 12-mile radius will 

be blocked from line of sight horizontal light emanating from the project area (WestLand 

Resources, Inc, 2012) (Figure 4); however, jaguars are mobile animals that travel over hills and 

ridgetops, and therefore would likely see the lighting (horizontal) during regular movement 

activities or during dispersal. Additionally, sky glow will likely be visible to jaguars in the 

vicinity of the mine at all times of night. In addition to the lighting from the proposed action, the 

Imerys Quarry will also contribute to nighttime lighting (see Figures 5 and 6). 

Although the specific effects of artificial lighting on jaguars are not known, the effects of human 

disturbance and artificial night lighting on large felids have been documented by several studies. 

Beier (1995) for example found dispersing pumas (Puma concolor) avoided night-lights in 

conjunction with open terrain, suggesting that pumas were moving away from city lights and 

urban glow and navigating toward the darkest horizon. Ngopresert et al.’s (2007) regression 

model showed that leopard (Panthera pardus) habitat use increased with distance from human 

settlements. In addition, a manual on the problem of depredation caused by jaguars and puma on 

cattle ranches states that the installation of lights in livestock corrals is a useful measure to deter 

jaguars from killing livestock (Hoogesteijn 2010). Although lighting intensity in a corral would 

likely be more intense than the lighting spilling outside the perimeter fence, the above studies 

suggest some avoidance of lighted areas by large felids. 

Because jaguars are extremely secretive and generally avoid human-disturbed areas, we 

anticipate that the jaguar may be reluctant to regularly use areas wherever horizontal light and 

possibly sky glow from the mine is visible. It is difficult to understand how sky glow may be 

perceived by jaguars; however according to the DEIS, nocturnal animals may be adversely 

affected by the light glow in night skies (USDA 2012:5). Sky glow may increase the ambient 

illumination in the area, which we anticipate could adversely affect jaguars to some degree. 

The Rosemont Copper Mine (measured from the edge of the perimeter fence) would constrict the 

semidesert grassland jaguar habitat between it and the existing Imerys Quarry (see Figure J-5) to 

a strip approximately 1.5 km (0.93 mi) in width (see Figure J-8); light and noise effects would 

also enter this area (see Figures J-4, J-9, J-10, and J-11). If jaguars do attempt to go through the 

narrower corridor between the mine and quarry(see discussion of effects to critical habitat, 

below), movement may be made more difficult due to the existing topography between the two 

facilities. In areas with rugged terrain, large carnivores’ (including jaguars’) travel patterns 

generally follow canyon bottoms and ridgelines (Beier 1995). Consistent with Beier’s findings, 

Dickson et al. (2005) found that cougars consistently used travel paths that were less rugged than 

their general surroundings. This suggests that individuals consider the energetic cost of 

alternative paths; hunting or traveling individuals minimize energetic expense by frequenting 

landscape features that cost the least. Based on the aforementioned information, jaguars moving 

through or within the proposed project area likely follow the numerous canyon bottoms 

occurring throughout the area within the proposed perimeter fence. The canyon bottoms and 

ridgelines in the aforementioned constricted corridor between the proposed mine and Imerys 
126

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

mine, however, generally run north-south, meaning that, after project construction, if a jaguar 

attempted to move through the corridor it would likely have to travel perpendicular to its normal 

travel patterns (i.e., up and down slope faces instead of via canyon bottoms and ridgelines). 

However, while this travel pattern could result in increased energetic cost to jaguars, jaguars are 

known to move large distances in rugged terrain, so this topography would not present a barrier 

to jaguar movement. Because areas immediately southeast of the mine contain habitat less 

suitable for jaguars (i.e. they were not included as proposed critical habitat), it is less likely that 

jaguar will move around the mine to the south. 

In conclusion, while much of the light will be confined to the pit area and thus minimally affect 

jaguars, the additional escaped horizontal lighting and sky glow may have an impact on jaguar 

movements. Jaguars may curtail their movements in the vicinity of the mine due the influence of 

nighttime lighting. 

3. Noise 

In addition to lights, jaguars that occur within the vicinity of the project may also be adversely 

affected by noise associated with the project. There will be increased noise associated with the 

proposed project due to construction,machinery, vehicle traffic, and blasting. Blasting will 

typically occur once a day and be limited to daylight hours. Some noise- management 

techniques and operational tools to minimize noise generated during mine operations have been 

incorporated into the project design. 

The nature of anthropogenic noise is multifaceted and complex in terms of how it affects 

wildlife. Noise is typically presented in terms of decibels (dB), and for the majority of noise 

assessments, including the one completed for the proposed project (Tetra Tech 2008, 2009c), it is 

quantified in terms of dBA, which is an “A-weighted” sound level scale that more closely 

describes how a person perceives sound. Thus, the sound level when defined as dBA does not 

always transfer to wildlife since species groups have different hearing sensitivities and ranges 

(Pater et al. 2006). Weighting is species-specific, and received sound levels depend on many 

factors (e.g., distance from source to receiver, source emission strength, source directivity, 

atmospheric attenuation, terrain, ground cover, weather, and frequency energy) (Pater et al. 

2009). 

According to the WestLand Resources, Inc. November 9, 2012, memo, much of the maximal 

intermittent equipment noise associated with the project will be within the perimeter fenceline, 

with the exception of low noise contours (30-40 dBA) that extend to the south across Box 

Canyon Road (Tetra Tech 2009). Blasting will generate brief maximum noise levels that would 

drop from about 52 to 57 dBA at three miles from the Open Pit to about 41 to 47 dBA at 

locations six miles from the center of the proposed Open Pit, and to 36 to 42 dBA at eight miles 

from the center of the Open Pit. These noise levels would be comparable to or less than the 

maximum noise levels of 55 to 60 dBA that currently occur several times per hour during 

daytime periods (Tetra Tech 2009). Noise contour maps for various mining activities appear in 

Figures J-9, J-10, and J-11. Noise levels (measured in dBA) associated with increased traffic 

volumes on SR 83 are predicted to increase, but it is not known how these will be perceived by 
127

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

jaguars. Increased noise levels due to traffic on the Sycamore connector road and the primary 

and utility maintenance roads, as well as possible increased traffic on Box Canyon road were not 

analyzed. 

Noise from construction and operation of the mine, including blasting and vehicle noise, is 

anticipated to disrupt jaguars’ normal movement patterns, possibly causing, among other things, 

changes in home range (size and location), habitat use, activity, foraging patterns and increased 

stress response. (NoiseQuest 2013; Pater et al. 2009). As stated above, jaguars selectively use 

large areas of relatively intact habitat away from certain forms of human influence (Zarza et al. 

2007, Monroy-Vichis et al. 2007) and are therefore likely to avoid human disturbance such as 

noise produced by the proposed project. As with lighting, the magnitude of impacts from noise 

is uncertain, but these impacts are expected to decrease as the distance from the mine increases. 

In the same or similar manner that noises affect jaguars, these anthropogenic disturbances may 

also adversely affect jaguar prey, leading to a reduced prey base for jaguars. Sawyer et al. 

(2006) reported mule deer were significantly more likely to select habitat away from noiseproducing oil and gas developments. Barber et al. (2009) document the costs of chronic noise 

exposure for terrestrial organisms and state that animal responses probably depend upon the 

intensity of perceived threats rather than on the intensity of noise. So, while the project is 

estimated to result in the permanent estimated loss of 14 white-tailed deer and 56 collared 

peccary (javelina) (AGFD 2012), we anticipate the project may also result in changes in prey 

distribution in surrounding areas. 

4. Roads and Utility Maintenance Corridor 

The detrimental effects of roads have been reported for a wide variety of large carnivores (Noss 

et al. 1996). Because large carnivores occur at low densities and have low reproductive rates, 

the effects of human disturbance are often magnified (Kerley et al. 2002). Roads are a serious 

threat to many large-carnivore populations because they can lead to increased mortality from 

vehicle strikes, disturbance, habitat fragmentation, access for legal or illegal harvest, and 

decreased prey numbers or changed prey distribution (Murphy 1983, Beier and Barrett 1993, 

Caso 1994, Menke and Hayes 2003, Colchero et al. 2010). The effects of roads can vary among 

large carnivore species and among sex and age classes within species. Colchero et al. (2010) 

note that jaguars move preferentially to undisturbed forests and that females avoid moving close 

to roads and to areas with even low levels of human occupation, while males also avoid roads, 

but to a lesser degree. According to Conde et al. (2010), female jaguars avoided roads while 

males appeared less likely to avoid them. Monroy-Vichis et al. (2007) report that jaguars occur 

with greater frequency in areas relatively distant from roads and human populations. Zarza et al. 

(2007) report that towns and roads have an impact on the spatial distribution of jaguars (jaguars 

used more frequently than expected by chance areas located more than 6.5 km from human 

settlements and 4.5 km from roads). However, in recent times, male jaguars in Arizona are 

known to have crossed roads, including two-lane highways. For example, the jaguar recently 

detected in the vicinity of the Rosemont Mine was formerly detected in the Whetstone 

Mountains. While we cannot determine the path taken by the animal to arrive in the Santa Rita 

Mountains, either or both SR 82 or 83 would need to have been crossed. 
128

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Vehicle strikes are a significant source of mortality for some felid populations (Beier and Barrett 

1993, FWS 2010). For example, in the Santa Ana Mountain Range in Southern California, 

vehicle collisions are the leading cause of mortality of cougars, comprising 32% of all deaths of 

radiotagged cougars and their offspring (Beier and Barrett 1993). Less is known about the level 

of mortality of jaguars caused by vehicle strikes. Jaguar road kill has been documented 

(Colchero et al. 2010), but not in the U.S. 

Pursuant to the Forest Service’s first supplemental Biological Assessment, no major paved roads 

are expected to be built to accommodate the mine, but the nearby major road (State Route 83) 

will experience an increase in traffic, and problems associated with traffic, such as more cars, 

more lights, more trucks, closer distance between vehicles, and so on. Mine-related traffic on SR 

83 during operations will primarily consist of trucks carrying supplies to the proposed project, 

trucks carrying concentrate from the proposed project, and employee traffic. A summary of 

mine-related truck traffic reports that 69 truck trips per day (455 per week) will occur on SR 83 

and the primary access road for the life of the project. This does not include other forms of 

vehicular access, such as by mine staff entering and leaving the site. The largest concentrated 

volume of mine traffic during a 24-hour period will occur during workforce shift change which 

will vary between 6 a.m. to 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Vehicular use of SR 83 associated with 

the proposed project is anticipated day and night, although according to Rosemont, heavy 

vehicular use of SR 83 and primary access road generally will not occur at night. 

Traffic during the pre-mining phase will use SR 83 and existing Forest Road 231 to access the 

project area until the new primary access road is constructed. This may require an upgrade to 

Forest Road 231 within the existing easement, in addition to an upgrade of the entrance to SR 83. 

At the intersection of SR 83 and the primary access road (see below), SR 83 will be widened and 

provided with additional lanes. As anticipated by the Forest Service in the BA, to accommodate 

such increases in traffic, additional portions of SR 83 may need to be upgraded. If this occurs, 

SR83 may further fragment jaguar habitat and lead to an increased risk of vehicle collision with 

jaguars. Additionally, if travelers attempt to avoid heavier traffic on SR 83, they may use Box 

Canyon Road as an alternative route. Increased traffic on SR 83 (regardless of widening) and 

possibly on Box Canyon will lead to an increased risk of jaguars being struck by vehicles. 

However, because jaguars in Arizona are scarce and no jaguars are known to have been struck by 

a vehicle in Arizona, it seems unlikely that there is great risk of vehicles striking jaguars on 

either road. 

While we are aware that male jaguars will cross roads, increased traffic on SR 83 may also lead 

to increased avoidance of areas near the road which may prevent them from crossing the road 

and using habitat on either side (Monroy-Vichis et al. 2007, Zarza et al. 2007, Conde et al. 

2010). After mine closure and reclamation/restoration activities end, the mine should cease 

being an influence on traffic on SR 83 and Box Canyon Road. 

Increased vehicular traffic on these roads will also likely lead to increased collisions with jaguar 

prey. Rosemont will monitor road-kill weekly on SR 83, adjacent to mine site, from the northern 

extent of currently proposed critical habitat to Gardner Canyon Road, to assess loss of jaguar, 
129

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

ocelot, or jaguar prey base (white-tailed and mule deer, collared peccary, and white-nosed coati, 

in particular). Monitoring will begin at the commencement of mine construction and continue 

through the second year of mine operation, a total of four years. 

The primary access road to the mine will be a newly constructed, two-lane paved road which will 

provide access to SR83 see (Figure J-3). During mine operations, the primary access road 

between the perimeter fence and the mine will be closed to the public; however, after mine 

closure, it will be open to public use. The primary access road will experience all mine-related 

traffic and some level of public use while the mine is in operation. Once operations have 

concluded and the primary access road between the perimeter and security fences is opened to 

public use, it will experience an unknown, but likely small level of vehicular use. Although we 

anticipate that jaguars will generally avoid the project area due to human disturbance associated 

with the mine, operation of this new road may increase the likelihood of vehicle collisions with 

jaguars. However, because jaguars in Arizona are scarce and no jaguars are known to have been 

struck by a vehicle in Arizona, it seems unlikely that there is great risk of vehicles striking 

jaguars on the primary access road. Vehicles could collide with potential jaguar prey; however, 

we do not anticipate it will have a significant impact on the jaguar prey base. The road will 

fragment suitable habitat between the mine footprint and areas to the north (Figure J-3). 

However, we anticipate jaguars will avoid most or all areas within the perimeter fence given the 

human influence between the project footprint and perimeter fence. 

The utility maintenance road, located within the utility corridor (Figure J-3) to serve as access to 

the power supply line, water supply line, and water booster pump stations, crosses through 

semidesert grassland northwest of the mine. Vehicle traffic on this road is expected to be much 

lighter in comparison to that on the primary access road. Therefore, we anticipate the chance of 

vehicles colliding with jaguars is even lower than on the primary access road. The road will be 

closed to the public during mine construction and operation; however, after the mine is closed, 

portions of the road, which will have been improved to permit access by lower-clearance, 2-

wheel drive vehicles, may be reopened to the public. Because we do not know if it will be 

reopened or, if reopened, the extent of public use that will occur on the road, it is impossible to 

predict the effects to jaguars that may occur from this road in the future. That said, in general, 

roads can lead to increased public access to areas, in this case to areas of jaguar habitat, which 

could lead to somewhat increased: (1) disturbance to jaguars in the area; (2) habitat degradation; 

(3) risk of human-caused fire; and (4) risk of illegal killing of jaguars and their prey. 

Additionally, the public may illegally use the road during mine operations and thereby increase 

the risk of the four aforementioned threats to jaguars. The Forest Service has indicated that 

illegal off-road vehicle use has been a problem for the Imerys mine. 

The Sycamore connector road (Figures J-3 and J-5) will be a new road constructed from a point 

on the primary access road outside the north edge of perimeter fence, to connect with National 

Forest System Road (NFSR) 4050-0.36R-1 (which intersects NFSR 4050 about 0.3 mile farther 

west). NFSR 4050-0.36R-1 is a road that traverses the aforementioned (and described below) 

narrowed corridor between the proposed Rosemont Mine and Imerys mine. Per the Forest 

Service, the Sycamore connector road is needed because the proposed perimeter fence will cut 

off legal public access to NFSRs in the Sycamore Canyon area, north of the project area. The 
130

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Sycamore connector road will be about 12,184 feet long (2.3 miles) and impact about 26 acres. 

The NFSRs in Sycamore Canyon currently connect to public roads out the bottom (north) end of 

the canyon. However, the roads cross numerous private ownerships, and a public easement for 

the road does not exist. Public access from this direction into Sycamore Canyon is thereby 

controlled by these private landowners. While public access is sometimes granted, it cannot be 

guaranteed. Constructing the Sycamore Connector Road as a NFSR will continue to provide 

legal public access to the roads that currently exist on Forest Service lands in this area. 

Improved accessibility in this area will likely result in increased public access to jaguar habitat 

which may lead to an increase in the four aforementioned threats above plus increased human 

presence in remote areas (i.e., roads may facilitate increased off-road vehicle and pedestrian 

traffic in the area). Likely increased traffic and resulting human disturbance would occur in an 

area already narrowed by the proposed project (i.e., between the proposed mine and Imerys 

mine). 

Disturbed ground will be susceptible to colonization by invasive nonnative plants such as 

buffelgrass and Lehmann lovegrass. Nonnative species may outcompete native species and the 

introduced grasses also carry fire better and burn hotter than the native species, which would 

degrade potential ocelot habitat. The invasive species monitoring and control measures (see 

Appendix B (the definitive version of which will be included in the Final EIS) will minimize this 

potential effect on NFS lands, but private and ASLD lands may be subject to lesser requirements. 

5. Increase in Human Disturbance 

As stated above, jaguars avoid areas of human activity. The project and action areas could 

subjectively be classified as relatively unpopulated; the action area has a low human density and 

contains no large communities. The major road in the vicinity is SR 83 immediately east of the 

project area, a paved two-lane highway between Sonoita and the Tucson metropolitan area. A 

certain level of recreation already exists in the area and thus, the primary adverse effect from an 

increase in human disturbance to the jaguar will be from the activities associated with the mine 

such as human presence, machinery, lighting, noise from blasting, and increased vehicles using 

SR 83. Due to the construction of two access roads and a connector road, there will be an 

increased possibility of legal and illegal access to the area which increases the risk of threats to 

jaguars as described above. 

In the same or similar manner that human activity affects jaguars, this anthropogenic disturbance 

may also adversely affect jaguar prey, leading to a reduced prey base for jaguars. So, as stated 

above, while the project will directly impact and result in the estimated loss of 14 white-tailed 

deer and 56 collared peccary (javelina) during the mine’s active construction and operation 

period (AGFD 2012); this may include additional impacts to prey due to increased human 

disturbance and possible increased legal and illegal access to the area. Upon conclusion of 

mining, and presuming that revegetation is effective over the long term, the area-based prey base 

losses will be reduced to only those attributable to the pit. 

Effects of the Action on Proposed Critical Habitat 
131

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Role and definitions of occupied (at the time of listing) versus unoccupied (at the time of listing) 

critical habitat 

According to the proposed rule, the conservation role or value of jaguar critical habitat (both 

occupied and unoccupied at the time of listing) is to provide areas to support some individuals 

during transient movements by providing patches of habitat (perhaps in some cases with a few 

resident jaguars), and as areas for cyclic expansion and contraction of the nearest core area and 

breeding population in the Northwestern Recovery Unit (NRU) (FWS 2012b). As explained in 

the proposed rule (FWS 2012b), occupied critical habitat requires all PCEs to be present; 

however if PCE 1 (connectivity to Mexico) is not present, then it must be provided by a unit not 

known to have been occupied at the time of listing. Per the proposed rule, unoccupied critical 

habitat (i.e., areas essential for the conservation of jaguars outside of occupied areas) does not 

require the presence of all PCEs; however it must: (1) connect an area that may have been 

occupied that is isolated within the United States to Mexico, either through a direct connection to 

the international border or through another area that may have been occupied; and (2) contain 

low human influence and impact, and either adequate vegetative cover or rugged terrain. 

The effects of the action on proposed critical habitat, including each of the primary constituent 

elements, are discussed below. 

Overarching requirement for jaguar critical habitat 

Expansive open spaces in the southwestern United States of at least 100 square kilometers (37 

square miles; 24,710 acres) 

The proposed action will permanently affect open spaces because the security fence will encircle 

and directly affect 3,513 acres of proposed critical habitat in Unit 3; new roads and trails will 

directly affect an additional 499 acres (17 miles of decommissioned roads are not permanent 

effects). These 4,017 acres of effects represent 1.1 percent of the 366,615-acre proposed critical 

habitat Unit 3 and 0.47 percent of all proposed critical habitat rangewide (858,137 acres). 

Outside of the security fence, a perimeter barbed-wire fence will be constructed to AGFD 

wildlife-compliant standards, but the area between it and the security fence will be subject to 

road, powerline, and water line construction and use, light, noise, and prey base effects. The 

perimeter fence will enclose an additional 2,291 acres beyond the security fence, thus affecting a 

total of 5,804 acres of jaguar proposed critical habitat for up to 30 years, with some areas 

potentially becoming more suitable if vegetation reclamation is successful over the long term. 

The area of proposed critical habitat permanently affected by roads and trails remains at 499-

acres (17 acres of to-be-decommissioned roads are not a permanent effect). These 6,304 acres of 

combined long-term and permanent effects from both fences and the associated roads, trails, and 

rights-of-way represent 1.72 percent of the 366,615-acre proposed critical habitat Unit 3, and 

0.73 percent of all proposed critical habitat rangewide (858,137 acres). 
132

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Although the proposed action will diminish the amount of expansive open space in Unit 3, it will 

still contain sufficient open space to retain its function (i.e., the proposed project will not reduce 

the remaining size of Unit 3 to less than 100 km2). 

Primary Constituent Elements 

PCE 1: Connectivity to Mexico 

Connectivity to Mexico is a trait of the proposed critical habitat and exists throughout each unit. 

Should a project be constructed such that it directly excludes any of the proposed critical habitat 

from access by jaguars moving to or from Mexico, the areal extent of the PCE is reduced. The 

proposed action will permanently remove connectivity to Mexico on 3,513 acres of land that will 

be encircled by the security fence, which will not be permeable to large, terrestrial animals such 

as jaguars. The perimeter fence and the section of access road between it and the security fence 

will likely remove or appreciably reduce connectivity to Mexico on 5,805 acres (2,291 acres 

more than the security fenced area) for 25 to 30 years. If connectivity to Mexico is to be stated in 

terms of width, rather than area, the mine (measured from the edge of the perimeter fence) will 

narrow the northern portion of Unit 3 from its present width of 3.6 km (2.2 mi) to approximately 

1.5 km (0.93 mi) (see analysis in subsequent paragraph and Figure J-8, below). Proposed critical 

habitat will remain in place outside of the perimeter fence, north of the proposed mine, south of 

the Imerys Quarry, and thus our analysis must consider if connectivity to Mexico is retained in 

that largely indirectly-affected area. 

The location of the proposed project in the northern portion of Patagonia Unit 3 would constrict 

the width of the northeastern portion of the unit which, in turn, could restrict the connection 

between Unit 3 and the Whetstone-Santa Rita Subunit 4b to the east which, as stated in the 

proposed critical habitat rule (FWS 2012b), may provide connectivity from the Whetstone 

Mountains to Mexico via the western portion of Unit 3 (see Figure J-2). We note, however, that 

no jaguar has ever been documented using Subunit 4b, and that other, more direct connectivity to 

Mexico would be through Subunit 4c (which also does not have documented jaguar occurrence 

records). The mine (measured from the edge of the perimeter fence) would constrict the northern 

portion of Unit 3 to a strip approximately 1.5 km (0.93 mi) in width from its present minimum 

width of 3.6 km (2.2 mi) (see Figure J-8 below). The 1.5 km area of semidesert grassland would 

thus be between the existing mine (Imerys Quarry) and the proposed action. 

As explained above under Effects of the Proposed Action on the Jaguar, a portion of this 1.5 km 

bottlenecked area will be impacted by noise, lights, vehicle traffic, and human recreation from 

the proposed project, making it less likely that jaguars will travel through the area. Refer to 

figures 4, 5 and 6 in the December 7, 2012, WestLand Resources report on the potential effects 

of lighting from the Rosemont project for a depiction of simulated light levels within jaguar 

critical habitat (Figure 6 from this report is included below as Figure J-6). Furthermore, 

construction and operation of the Sycamore connector road will ensure legal (to the extent that 

current access involved private lands) public access (vehicle and pedestrian) to the 1.5 km 

constricted corridor. The direct (noise, lights, dust) and indirect effects (likely increased public 

access and resulting increase in threats to jaguars) of this road will likely further reduce the 
133

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

likelihood that jaguars will travel through the narrowed corridor between the proposed mine and 

critical habitat. The secondary access road, although not situated in the narrowest corridor, will 

be constructed/reconstructed across a narrowed portion of the corridor between the mine and 

edge of critical habitat and may permit modest increases in access (in that current access 

involves private lands). The effects of this road (presence and use) will likely further reduce the 

likelihood that jaguar will travel through the corridor between the two mines within critical 

habitat. If jaguars avoid movement through this narrowed corridor, they would be unable to 

move from the Whetstones to Mexico via subunit 4b. 

Figures 3, 4, and 5 from Tetra Tech (2009) depict the noise contours of surface blasting, pit 

blasting, and construction, respectively, and are included here as Figures J-9, J-10, and J-11. 

Some level of increased sound will enter the corridor between the proposed action and the 

Imerys Quarry. We reiterate that Tetra Tech (2009) stated the modeled noise values will not 

exceed current noise maxima at the site, but also that jaguars’ hearing sensitivities and ranges 

may differ from humans (Pater et al. 2006). 

As explained above, we acknowledge that the effects of human influence from the proposed 

project may reduce the likelihood that jaguars will move through the corridor between the two 

mines. However, we do not have enough information on the ability of jaguars to move through 

habitat affected by human influence in Arizona to determine with a reasonable degree of 

certainty whether or not a jaguar will move through the constricted corridor between the mines. 

Depending on jaguar response to the mine (i.e., if they will move through the constricted corridor 

or not), the possible effects to critical habitat from the proposed project would vary. For 

example, if jaguars will move through the constricted corridor, then the most significant effects 

of the proposed project would stem from the direct loss of critical habitat acres due to the project 

footprint. However, if jaguars will not move through the constricted corridor remaining within 

Unit 3, then the role of Subunit 4b, as defined in the proposed critical habitat rule (i.e., to connect 

Subunit 4a to Mexico via Unit 3) would be lost, in addition to the direct loss of critical habitat 

from the project footprint. That said, connectivity of Subunit 4a to Mexico would still exist via 

Subunit 4c (Whetstone-Huachuca Subunit). Further, there is no evidence that jaguars ever have 

used this area for travel and we cannot speculate whether they will use this area for travel in the 

future. 

At this time, we are uncertain which direction a jaguar may move to travel between the 

Whetstone Mountains and Mexico (i.e., via 4b or 4c), therefore, maintaining all critical habitat 

that allows for this movement could be important to jaguar conservation. We note that jaguar 

movement in the U.S. is poorly understood, but also that no established movement pathways 

have been documented here. 

PCE 2: Adequate levels of prey species 

Please refer to the discussion of this effect under the Effects of the Proposed Action on the 

Jaguar section, above. 

PCE 3: Surface water sources within 12.4 miles (20 km) of each other
134

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

In the action area (as defined by the Forest Service) perennial streams are known to exist at Box 

Canyon, Empire Gulch, and Cienega Creek; all of these are intermittent during dry periods (early 

summer low flow and drought) but tend to have some pools remaining. There are several named 

ephemeral streams (e.g., Barrel, McCleary, Scholefield, Wasp, and Davidson Canyons), 

numerous constructed waters (primarily stock tanks and drinkers), and some seeps with surface 

water in the project and action areas. 

All surface water will be eliminated within the footprint of the mine and thus impact PCE 3. As 

a result of groundwater drawdown after the life of the mine, the amount or volume of water 

within regional perennial pools could decrease, which could result in indirect effects on PCE 3. 

Disruptions of surface water flow resulting from the capture of runoff in the pit are expected to 

occur along the Barrel Canyon drainage through Davidson Canyon to its confluence with 

Cienega Creek. Groundwater flow models were designed to simulate conditions prior to pit 

development, during pit dewatering, and for a 1,000-year post-closure period of groundwater 

level recovery and potential pit lake development (Montgomery and Associates 2010; Tetra Tech 

2010c), and it was determined that groundwater level drawdown could result in the dewatering 

of streams, seeps, and springs, which may serve as water sources for jaguars. Uncertainties in 

the variables used to build the models, however, could be manifested as greater reductions of 

groundwater and greater impact to surface water levels (e.g., lower water level, more extensive 

dry reaches) and riparian vegetation than modeled. Conversely, impacts may not prove to be as 

severe. The timing and amount of groundwater drawdown at Box Canyon Dam Structure, Ophir 

Gulch Well, and South Sycamore Canyon have been modeled, but not specifically reported 

beyond the groundwater contour information in Tetra Tech (2010c), Montgomery (2010), and 

Myers (2010) and displayed in SWCA (2012) (citations refer to the Effects to Aquatic 

Ecosystems section). Any effects to waters of interest would be more pronounced during periods 

of low flow (May and June, or during an extended drought) because even small flow reductions 

could cause some portions of Cienega Creek, or other aquatic areas, to stop flowing. These 

modeled decreases in groundwater (less than 1 foot) would occur over a long period of time but 

could cause changes in riparian vegetation extent or health; if there are reductions in stream flow 

in a large area, this could impact jaguars, which need free-standing water sources within 20 km 

of each other. The Water Source Enhancement mitigation measure, however, calls for seven 

already-located and 23 not-yet-located water sources to be installed or enhanced. Should these 

sites be advantageously situated – and siting will be guided, in part, by the Terms and Conditions 

associated with the Chiricahua leopard frog analysis - they could prevent the 20 km distance 

from being exceeded. 

Although the amount of available water will be reduced by the proposed action, there is no 

indication that PCE 3 will be reduced to a level that water will not be available in any 20-km 

area. Because of the numerous water sources such as stock tanks and drinkers, PCE 3 will not be 

reduced to below the threshold established in the proposed critical habitat rule. Further, 

Rosemont will ensure that restored or replaced springs within jaguar critical habitat are 

constructed in accordance with jaguar PCEs for surface water (see Proposed Conservation 

Measures and their effects, below). 
135

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

PCE 4: Madrean evergreen woodland or semidesert grassland vegetation community between 1

to 50 percent canopy cover 

Within the project area (as described in the BA and above) and most of the action area (as 

described in the BA), the vegetation community is composed of semidesert grassland and 

Madrean evergreen woodland. The only part of the project area not in this vegetation type is 

along the spine of the mountains, where some rock outcrops and talus slopes may have less than 

1% cover. The area also contains moderate to highly rugged terrain. The proposed action will 

affect PCE 4 within the project footprint because the security fence will encircle and directly 

affect and remove (for the construction and operational life of the mine) 3,513 acres of proposed 

critical habitat in Unit 3; roads and trails will directly and permanently affect an additional 499 

acres. 

PCE 5: Moderate to highly rugged terrain 

The area also contains moderate to highly rugged terrain. During operations, effects to 

ruggedness will be immaterial relative to effects to PCEs 2 (prey) and 6 (human disturbance). 

The proposed action’s permanent effect to ruggedness, assuming the extent of the PCE related to 

vegetative cover (PCE 4) is adequately addressed by reclamation and revegetation, is primarily 

within the pit which, while topographically rugged, will be permanently excluded from access. 

 

PCE 6: Little human influence or disturbance 

This PCE was developed using research that highlights the fact that jaguars generally avoid areas 

of human activity. Pursuant to the proposed rule, an HII of 20 or less is an essential element of 

PCE 6. Specifically, this PCE includes minimal to no human population density, no major roads, 

and no stable nighttime lighting over any 0.4-square-mile (1-km2) area (FWS 2012b). The 

proposed project and action areas currently have a low human density and contain no large 

communities. The proposed project is currently in an area with an HII values between 14 and 

18. 

As described below, as a result of the proposed project, overall human influence and disturbance 

(from roads, lights, etc.) will increase which will likely remove PCE 6 from the project area and 

a portion of the action area. Although the level of human influence will increase, at this time we 

cannot quantify the extent by which the HII will be affected due to the complicated way a 

number of variables interact to create HII. For example, road density is a component of HII, but 

we cannot determine if the existing roads in the area (i.e. the current Sycamore Canyon access), 

already drive observed human disturbance to the same extent that the proposed Primary Access 

Road will. Similarly, although overall human influence and disturbance will increase within the 

areas between Imerys Quarry and the proposed action, we cannot determine the resulting value 

of the HII in that area. 

As described above, primary and secondary access roads and the Sycamore connector road will 

be constructed as part of the proposed project. The physical construction of these roads and their 

associated traffic, as well as likely increased public access to and use of areas around the mine 
136

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

(due to the roads), will further contribute to increased human influence in the area, and possibly 

increased HII. Additionally, increased traffic on SR 83, and possible upgrades to SR 83 (as 

described above) and on Box Canyon will further contribute to increased human influence in the 

area, and possibly increased HII. Increased traffic on SR 83 may further limit jaguar access to 

the northeastern portion of Unit 3. Lighting from the proposed mine, as discussed in detail 

under the Effects of the Proposed Action on Jaguar, will result in increased horizontal lighting 

and sky glow in jaguar habitat, will further contribute to increased human influence in the area, 

and possibly result in increased HII. 

The presence of a jaguar in the action area in 2012 and 2013 suggests that the amount of ambient 

light present is not great enough to repel the jaguar, indicating the area is currently “dark 

enough” for jaguars. It also suggests that the current HII is currently “low enough” for jaguars. 

The September 2012 camera detection of the jaguar was particularly close to the proposed mine 

site and was approximately 6.4 km (4 mi) away from the existing mine (Imerys). However, once 

the proposed action is in place, jaguars may avoid the area between the proposed mine and the 

Imerys mine because of the decreased width of the corridor and increased human disturbance 

(roads, lighting, etc.), which may further functionally narrow the corridor. 

Summary of Effects to PCEs 

In summary, the mine’s project footprint will adversely affect all PCEs (i.e., connectivity to 

Mexico, prey, surface water, canopy cover, rugged terrain, and little human influence) to some 

degree in the northern portion of Unit 3 for 25 to 30 years, although some of the effects will be 

offset to varying degrees by the proposed conservation measures. Many PCEs outside of the 

project footprint but within portions of the action area will also be indirectly adversely affected 

by the proposed project (from increased lighting, noise, traffic, human use, etc.). While the 

extent to which jaguars will traverse the constricted portion of Unit 3 is unknown, it is 

reasonable to conclude that access through this area will be hampered to some extent. We 

reiterate, however, that we are unable to predict whether jaguars will use this connection between 

the Whetstones and Santa Ritas. If jaguars will not move through the constricted area of Unit 3, 

then the role of Subunit 4b to the east, as defined in the proposed critical habitat rule (i.e., to 

connect Subunit 4a to Mexico via Unit 3) would be lost. That said, connectivity of Subunit 4a to 

Mexico would still exist via Subunit 4c. Additionally, if the constricted corridor creates a barrier 

to jaguar movement, the function of the northeastern portion of Unit 3 could be diminished. 

Again, however, the remaining portion of Unit 3 (i.e., south of the mine) would still remain 

functional. The direct loss of critical habitat (in Unit 3) and possible indirect loss of critical 

habitat (in Unit 4b) will somewhat reduce the conservation value of those critical habitat units 

for the jaguars. 

Effects to the Conservation Value of Critical Habitat with the Proposed Action 

Critical habitat is defined 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 
137

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the species. Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, 

means to use and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring an 

endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided under the Act are 

no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities 

associated with scientific resources management such as research, census, law enforcement, 

habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the 

extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise 

relieved, may include regulated taking. 

Specific areas within the U.S. that provide the physical and biological features essential to jaguar 

habitat can contribute to the species’ persistence and, therefore, overall conservation by 

providing areas to support some individuals during dispersal movements, by providing small 

patches of habitat (perhaps in some cases with a few resident jaguars), and as areas for cyclic 

expansion and contraction of the nearest core area and breeding population in the NRU. As 

such, critical habitat was developed to allow the above functions to occur. Specifically, as 

explained above, critical habitat for the jaguar was defined as expansive open spaces in the 

southwestern United States with adequate connectivity to Mexico that contain a sufficient native 

prey base and available surface water, have suitable vegetative cover and rugged topography to 

provide sites for resting, and have minimal human impact (FWS 2012b, FWS 2013). These 

areas are limited within the U.S. and therefore have an important conservation role for the jaguar. 

Unit 3 connects with Mexico in two separate areas, to the east/southeast through the Huachuca 

Mountains and to the south through the Patagonia Mountains. Subunit 4 contains three subunits 

(4a, 4b, and 4c), one of which (4a) is considered to have been occupied at the time of listing. 

According to the proposed rule, the Whetstone-Santa Rita Subunit (4b) and Whetstone-Huachuca 

Subunit (4c) are essential to the conservation of the jaguar because they provide connectivity 

from the Whetstone Mountains to Mexico (FWS 2012b, FWS 2013). Both 4b and 4c were 

included in critical habitat because we do not know which route(s) are most conducive to 

providing the connectivity function. We also have no records that either Subunit has ever been 

used for this purpose by jaguars. Because we cannot predict which way jaguars may move 

between the Whetstone Mountains and Mexico, either or both subunits may (or may not) be 

important to the conservation of jaguars in the NRU. 

The loss of proposed jaguar critical habitat within the project footprint and partial loss of PCEs 

within portions of the action area (as described above) reduces the conservation value of Unit 3 

by reducing the amount of area that may support: (1) some individual jaguars during dispersal 

movements, by providing small patches of habitat (perhaps in some cases with a few resident 

jaguars); and (2) cyclic expansion and contraction of the nearest core area and breeding 

population in the NRU. That said, the majority of Unit 3, and therefore its conservation value, 

will not be affected by the proposed action. 

We do not know if a jaguar will move through the constricted portion of Unit 3 between the 

proposed mine and the Imerys Quarry. If jaguars cannot traverse the constriction, the role of 

Subunit 4b, as defined in the proposed critical habitat rule (i.e., to connect Subunit 4a to Mexico 
138

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

via Unit 3) could be lost, but connectivity of Subunit 4a to Mexico would still exist via Subunit 

4c. However, the integrity of the critical habitat complex comprised of Units 3 and 4 will be 

weakened to some extent. 

 

This possible reduction in function of Subunit 4b and partial loss of function of Unit 3 will 

somewhat diminish the conservation value of critical habitat as a whole. As explained above, 

areas that provide the primary constituent elements essential to jaguar habitat are limited within 

the U.S. and therefore have an important conservation role for the jaguar. Losing portions of 

these areas (i.e., critical habitat areas), as is likely to occur with the proposed project, reduces the 

ability of critical habitat to function as intended by the proposed rule. That said, the majority of 

critical habitat will be unaffected by the proposed action and will therefore retain its function and 

conservation value. Further, the effects of the action on the proposed critical habitat will not 

considerably reduce the capability of critical habitat to be used in a way such that research, 

census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping and 

transplantation and other similar conservation measures are precluded. 

Effects of the Action on Proposed Critical Habitat in Relation to Recovery 

As described above in the Status of the Species, a draft recovery plan for the jaguar has not been 

finalized, thus no recovery criteria exist to date to be used in this opinion. However, the 2012 

Recovery Outline for the Jaguar developed eight “recovery objectives,” which, at this time, 

provide FWS with the best information based on the opinion of jaguar experts. Recovery 

objectives collectively describe the specific conditions under which the goals (i.e., delisting) for 

recovery of the jaguar, throughout its range (including within and outside of the proposed critical 

habitat in the U.S.) will be met. As described below, the proposed action may adversely impact 

five out of eight recovery objectives within the Jaguar Recovery Outline: 

“1) Assess, protect, and restore sufficient habitat to support viable populations of jaguars in the 

two recovery units.” This objective is adversely impacted to an extent, but a loss of less than one 

percent of critical habitat, and a much smaller percentage of the NRU, cannot be expected to 

preclude achievement of this objective. 

“2) Mediate or mitigate the effects of human population growth and development on jaguar 

survival and mortality where possible.” This objective is adversely impacted to an extent. The 

proposed action will increase human influence in the portion of the range where the action would 

be implemented, but we have no evidence to conclude that the action will appreciably influence 

survival and mortality at the Recovery Unit level; attainment of this recovery objective is not 

precluded by the proposed action. 

“3) Reduce direct human-caused (i.e., illegal and legal killing) mortality of jaguars.” This 

objective is adversely impacted to an extent. Our analysis contemplates that increased human 

access to the action area and surrounding lands could lead to an increased risk of intentional (e.g. 

shooting) and unintentional (e.g., vehicle collisions) jaguar fatalities. However, this is somewhat 

speculative and, even if true, does not appreciably affect attainment of this objective in the NRU. 
139

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

“4) Reduce illegal hunting of jaguar prey and improve regulation of legal hunting where 

appropriate (i.e., in cases where hunting is leading to significant reductions of jaguar prey).” 

This objective is adversely impacted to an extent. Our analysis estimates a minimum estimated 

reduction (in carrying capacity) equaling 14 white-tailed deer and 56 javelina. This is not 

significant at the Recovery Unit level. 

“5) Maintain or improve genetic fitness, demographic conditions, and health of the jaguar.” This 

objective is adversely impacted to an extent. Our analysis shows that connectivity to Mexico 

will remain after implementation of the proposed action, so we do not anticipate that genetic 

fitness, demographic conditions, or the health of the jaguar will be significantly compromised. 

“6) Assure the long-term viability of jaguar conservation through partnerships, the development 

and application of incentives for landowners, application of existing regulations, and public 

education and outreach.” This recovery objective will not be adversely affected by the proposed 

action. 

“7) Practice adaptive management in which recovery is monitored and recovery tasks are revised 

by the USFWS in coordination with the Jaguar Recovery Team as new information becomes 

available.” This proposed action has no applicability to this recovery objective; the objective will 

not be adversely impacted. 

“8) Support international efforts to ascertain the status and conservation needs of the jaguar in 

the two recovery units.” This proposed action has no applicability to this recovery objective; the 

objective will not be adversely impacted. 

Although five of these objectives may be adversely impacted by the proposed project, it is 

unlikely that the level of the impact will lead to measurable delays in the recovery of jaguars 

within the NRU, within and/or outside of the proposed critical habitat. 

Proposed Conservation Measures and their effects

The conservation measures that are part of the proposed action are meant to avoid or offset some 

adverse effects. The Forest Service provided jaguar-specific conservation measures in the BA 

that include:

1. Mitigation with regard to lighting (see Monrad 2012) includes the reduction of lumens to 

5.2 million lumens, though we note that USFS (2013b) later revised its estimates upward 

to 5.8 and 6.4 million lumens, the latter of which will appear in the Final EIS (see USGS 

2013d, as cited in the Description of the Proposed Action section). 

2. Rosemont will ensure that restored or replaced springs within jaguar critical habitat are 

constructed in accordance with jaguar PCEs for surface water. 

3. As part of the concurrent reclamation program, Rosemont will establish 1 to 50 percent 

woody vegetation cover averaged over the reclamation area, excluding the pit. This shall 

be established as a prescriptive obligation of the concurrent reclamation program in 
140

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

appropriate areas as determined in conjunction with the biological monitor during project 

development. 

4. Rosemont will monitor road-kill weekly on SR 83, adjacent to the mine site, from the 

northern extent of currently proposed critical habitat to Gardner Canyon Road, to assess 

loss of jaguar, ocelot, or jaguar prey base (white-tailed and mule deer, collared peccary, 

white-nosed coati, in particular). Monitoring will begin at the commencement of mine 

construction and continue through the second year of mine operation, a total of four 

years. After the initial four years of monitoring, the Biological Monitor, working with 

Rosemont, other entities, and FWS, will determine if additional field data collection is 

necessary to inform determination of whether or not a man-made wildlife crossing 

structure is needed and, if it is required, where it might be located. Rosemont will report 

road-kill in the annual report. Smaller jaguar prey (lagomorphs, rodents) will not be 

reported. Fatalities of any FS and BLM sensitive species will also be reported. This 

work may be conducted by the Biological Monitor as part of their regular site visits 

funded by Rosemont. In addition to increasing knowledge regarding the movement of 

wildlife in the area, information collected during this investigation may identify a suitable 

wildlife crossing structure location. We note that this Conservation Measure does not 

ensure that such a crossing will be constructed. 

5. Rosemont will report all jaguar and ocelot sightings immediately to the Biological 

Monitor.

6. Rosemont will provide $50,000 to an entity approved by the CNF to support camera 

studies for large predators including jaguar and ocelot. The money will be provided for 

additional monitoring efforts between the Santa Rita and the Whetstone Mountains and 

along the Santa Rita Mountains. In addition to increasing knowledge regarding the 

movement of wildlife in the area, information collected during this investigation may 

identify a suitable wildlife crossing structure location. Again, we note that this 

Conservation Measure does not ensure that such a crossing will be constructed. 

7. Rosemont will acquire or record restrictive covenants or conservation easements on the 

following parcels of land: 

a. Sonoita Creek Ranch: This land will be purchased and either made available to 

an approved ILF Sponsor (see Sonoita Creek Ranch Conservation Measure for an 

explanation of the ILF program) approved by the Corps or managed for 

conservation by Rosemont or a conservation partner. In any case, the land will 

provide wildlife conservation benefits as described in the conservation measures. 

It contains a total of approximately 1,200 acres of semidesert grassland, Madrean 

evergreen woodland, and riparian habitat along upper Sonoita Creek and includes 

surface water rights that support two perennial ponds and associated riparian 

vegetation. It is within proposed jaguar critical habitat. Sonoita Creek Ranch will 

be managed for conservation purposes to provide habitat and connectivity for 

jaguars and ocelots between the Canelo Hills/Patagonia Mountains and the Santa 

Rita Mountains, slightly over a mile away to the west of the ranch, in perpetuity. 

The southern portion of the ranch has been identified by the Arizona Wildlife 

Linkages Workgroup and the Arizona Missing Linkages Corridor design as a 

likely corridor between these two CNF land blocks. 
141

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

b. Davidson Canyon Watershed Parcels: Rosemont will record a restrictive 

covenant or conservation easement on these parcels. These properties consist of 

six parcels on the eastern side of the Santa Rita Mountains and total 

approximately 574 acres of semidesert grassland and associated xero- or 

mesoriparian habitat. All but one of these parcels are within proposed jaguar 

critical habitat (a total of 527 acres within proposed critical habitat). These will 

be included as available land for the establishment of water features beneficial to 

listed species such as jaguars. 

c. Helvetia Ranch North: Rosemont will record a restrictive covenant or 

conservation easement on these parcels which contain approximately 940 acres of 

semidesert grassland on the west side of the northern Santa Rita Mountains near 

the proposed project’s infrastructure corridor. The parcels are outside of proposed 

jaguar critical habitat. These will be included as available land for the 

establishment of water features beneficial to listed species such as jaguars. 

The conservation measures listed above are anticipated to help avoid and offset adverse effects 

of the proposed project to jaguars to some extent. Sonoita Creek Ranch and five of the Davidson 

Canyon parcels are located within proposed jaguar critical habitat and therefore may help protect 

connectivity within critical habitat. The other conservation lands are not located within proposed 

critical habitat and thus will not contribute to the protection of connectivity within critical 

habitat. They will, however, likely contribute to some extent to jaguar conservation in general. 

Although the funding to conduct carnivore monitoring may provide some information on jaguar 

use of the area, $50,000 is likely only enough funding to conduct carnivore monitoring in a 

limited geographic area for about six months, which is generally not a sufficient amount of time 

to collect quality data on cryptic carnivore movement. 

The Forest Service also proposed a series of general conservation measures as well as 

conservation measures for other listed species, some of which have elements that may provide 

conservation benefits to the jaguar. For example, the species-specific conservation measures for 

the Chiricahua leopard frog, as modified by the Terms and Conditions appearing in the frog’s 

Incidental Take Statement, include establishment of new waters. The USFS (2013b) has stated 

that site selection for these aquatic habitats will include consideration for the between-water 

travel distance associated with jaguars. The Second Supplemental BA section entitled 

Additional Considerations for Aquatic and Riparian Species and their Habitat, and Seeps and 

Springs will further ensure that jaguars (and ocelots) are considered in the replacement of 

affected waters. 

The Second Supplemental BA section entitled Mechanism for Monitoring and Adaptive 

Management will help ensure that measures are implemented and that their biological efficacy is 

monitored, with changes made to ensure their intended mitigative purpose is achieved. 

Summary of Effects of the Action 

Jaguar 
142

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

The proposed project will directly and indirectly affect jaguars and jaguar habitat within the 

NMU. The proposed action will result in an up to 30-year temporal loss of up to approximately 

14.2 to 33.8 percent of a jaguar home range. The proposed action will result in a permanent loss 

of up to approximately 10.9 to 26.0 percent of a jaguar home range. Lesser effects may be 

anticipated as reclamation activities proceed and successfully reestablish sufficient permanent 

canopy cover; permanent habitat losses will then be largely due to the security-fenced area and 

pit. 

The mine will also permanently reduce the abundance of jaguar prey, estimated by AGFD (2012) 

to amount to 14 white-tailed deer and 56 collared peccary (javelina), both key prey species for 

jaguar. However, this habitat loss will be partially offset by Rosemont’s conservation 

commitment to protect 2,714 acres of jaguar habitat (and currently, proposed critical habitat) in 

perpetuity. 

In addition to the direct habitat loss, lighting and noise from the proposed project are anticipated 

to disturb jaguars. Should the human activity associated with this mine disturb jaguars 

significantly, the result would likely be a shift in home range, perhaps to an area further south in 

the Santa Rita and/or Patagonia Mountains. These disturbances, along with additional roads and 

traffic, may also make jaguars reluctant to travel through the narrowed portion of habitat in the 

northern Santa Rita Mountains, and thence to the Whetstone Mountains. The conservation 

measures listed above are anticipated to avoid and offset adverse effects of the proposed project 

to jaguars to some extent. 

Because no recovery criteria have been established for the species, we cannot determine how the 

proposed project will specifically affect the downlisting and delisting of jaguars. The project 

may, however, adversely impact 5 out of 8 recovery objectives, but not to the extent that those 

objectives are precluded. The analyses contained in Items 1 through 8 in the section entitled 

Effects of the Action on Proposed Critical Habitat in Relation to Recovery, above, apply to the 

jaguar and the species’ habitat, both within and outside of the proposed critical habitat. Also as 

stated in these prior analyses, although these objectives may be affected by the proposed project, 

it is unlikely that the level of the effect will lead to measurable delays in the recovery of jaguars 

within the NRU.

Proposed Jaguar Critical Habitat 

1. Direct loss of proposed critical habitat due to the proposed project footprint: 

The security fence will encircle and directly affect 3,513 acres of proposed critical habitat in Unit 

3; the direct effects of new roads and trails bring the total affected area to 4,017 acres. This 4,017 

acres of effects represent 1.1 percent of the 366,615-acre proposed critical habitat Unit 3 and 

0.47 percent of all proposed critical habitat rangewide (858,137 acres). 

The perimeter fence will enclose an additional 2,291 acres beyond the security fence, thus 

affecting a total of 5,804 acres of jaguar proposed critical habitat for up to 30 years, with some 

areas potentially becoming more suitable if vegetation reclamation is successful over the long 
143

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

term. The addition of road and trail effects brings the affected area to 6,304 acres of combined 

long-term and permanent effects, which represents 1.72 percent of proposed critical habitat Unit 

3, and 0.73 percent of all proposed critical habitat rangewide. Conservation lands (totaling 1,727 

acres), however, will be protected and managed in perpetuity within proposed jaguar critical 

habitat, and therefore will offset some of this habitat loss. 

2. Indirect effects to proposed critical habitat and reduced connectivity due to the proposed 

project: 

As described above, the location of the proposed project in the northern portion of Patagonia 

Unit 3 will likely restrict connectivity between Patagonia Critical Habitat Unit 3 and the 

Whetstone-Santa Rita Subunit 4b to some unknown extent. The latter unit, according to the 

proposed rule, provides connectivity from the Whetstone Mountains and to Mexico through Unit 

3 (see Figures J-2 and J-3). We do not have enough information on the ability of jaguars to 

move through habitat affected by human influence in Arizona to determine definitively whether 

or not a jaguar will move through the constricted corridor between the mines. However, if 

jaguars will not move through the constricted portion of northeastern Unit 3, then the functional 

role of Subunit 4b, as defined in the proposed critical habitat rule (i.e., to connect Subunit 4a to 

Mexico via Unit 3), would be removed. That said, connectivity of Subunit 4a to Mexico would 

still exist via Subunit 4c. Additionally, if the constricted corridor area creates a barrier to jaguar 

movement, the function of the northeastern portion of Unit 3 (i.e., the portion of Unit 3 from the 

constricted corridor to the western boundary of Subunit 4b) would also be diminished. Again, 

however, the remaining portion of Unit 3 (i.e., south of the mine) would still remain functional. 

Further, Rosemont’s permanent protection of 1,727 acres of private lands within critical habitat 

will further protect connectivity within critical habitat. 

3. Effects to recovery: 

By definition, critical habitat is habitat determined to be essential for the conservation (i.e., 

recovery) of the species. Adverse effects to some of these limited critical habitat areas and to 

one potential pathway from the Whetstones to Mexico, as may occur with the proposed project 

(as described above), somewhat reduces the ability of critical habitat and the northernmost 

secondary area (i.e., NMU) to contribute to the recovery of jaguars in the NRU. That said, the 

majority of proposed critical habitat will remain unaffected and therefore retain its ability to 

contribute to jaguar recovery in the NRU. Additionally, although some recovery objectives for 

the jaguar may be affected by the proposed project, it is unlikely that the level of the effect will 

lead to measurable delays in the recovery of jaguars within the NRU. 

4. Effects to conservation: 

This partial loss of function of Unit 3 and possible reduction in function of Subunit 4b will 

somewhat diminish the conservation value of proposed critical habitat as a whole. As explained 

above, areas that provide the primary constituent elements essential to jaguar habitat are limited 

within the U.S. and therefore have an important conservation role for the jaguar. Adverse effects 

to portions of these areas (i.e., proposed critical habitat areas), as are likely to occur as a result of 
144

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

the proposed action, reduce the ability of proposed critical habitat to function as intended by the 

proposed rule. That said, the vast majority of proposed critical habitat will be unaffected by the 

proposed action and will therefore retain its function and conservation value. Further, the effects 

of the proposed action on the proposed critical habitat will not considerably reduce the capability 

of proposed critical habitat to be used in a way such that research, census, law enforcement, 

habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping and transplantation and other 

similar conservation measures are precluded. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS - JAGUAR 

Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, local, or private actions that are reasonably 

certain to occur in the action area considered in this biological opinion. Future Federal actions 

that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require 

separate consultation under section 7 of the Act. Many lands within the action area are managed 

by Federal agencies; thus, many activities that could potentially affect jaguars are Federal 

activities that are subject to section 7 consultation. The effects of these Federal activities are not 

considered cumulative effects. However, a portion of the action area also occurs on private 

lands. Residential and commercial development, road construction, farming, livestock grazing, 

mining, off-highway vehicle use, and other activities occur on these lands and are expected to 

continue into the foreseeable future. 

Critical Habitat Units 3 and 4 are closer to rapidly expanding urban areas than any other units 

and therefore more vulnerable to loss of connectivity. Tucson, Patagonia, and Sierra Vista are all 

expanding populations with increasing land development. Immediately southwest of the 

Mustang Mountains (Subunit 4c) is the proposed Rain Valley development. On the other (east) 

side of the Mustang Mountains, the community of Huachuca City is poised for additional 

development with the impending completion of a new wastewater treatment plant. Subunit 4b, 

through the Empire Mountains, lies between growth both to the north (Tucson) and the south 

(Patagonia and Sonoita). The aforementioned actions, the effects of which are considered to be 

cumulative, may result in fragmentation, loss, or degradation of jaguar habitat and disturbance to 

jaguars. Although not documented recently in the U.S., illegal hunting of jaguars adversely 

affects the species. Illegal activities associated with cross-border smuggling and illegal 

immigration (e.g., human traffic, deposition of trash, creation of trails and routes, and increased 

fire risk from human traffic) also occur in the action area. These activities can also degrade 

jaguar habitat and disturb jaguars. 

CONCLUSIONS - JAGUAR 

Jaguar 

After reviewing the current status of the jaguar, the environmental baseline for the action area, 

the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is our opinion that the Rosemont 

Copper Mine, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the jaguar. 

Pursuant to 50 CFR §402.02, “jeopardize the continued existence of” means to engage in an 

action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the 
145

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

likelihood of both survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the 

reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species. We base this conclusion on the following: 

1. Jaguars range from southern U.S., i.e., Arizona and New Mexico, to south America, i.e., 

Argentina, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, French Guiana, 

Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, 

Venezuela (Swank and Teer 1989, Caso et al. 2008). Habitat loss (assuming a 5,401-

acre/8.4 mi2area) from the proposed action will affect a miniscule amount of habitat 

from this global perspective. The proposed action’s effect to the 15.1 million km2(5.8 

million mi2) combined NRU and Pan-American Recovery Units, which encompass the 

entire range of the jaguar, is immeasurably small, at 1.4 x 10-6 percent. The effects of 

habitat loss are also small at the recovery and management unit scales. The proposed 

action will permanently affect approximately 0.01 percent of the 74,262 mi2 NRU, 

approximately 0.07 percent of the entire 12,337 mi2 NMU, and 0.3 percent of the 2,959 

mi2portion of the NMU in the U.S. 

2. Only one jaguar may be incidentally taken via harassment under the proposed action, and 

there are an estimated 30,000 jaguars throughout the species’ range. Sanderson and 

Fisher (2013b) estimate a carrying capacity of 27 jaguars in the U.S. portion of the NMU, 

162 jaguars in the entire NMU, and 4,400 jaguars within the NRU; actual population 

numbers are unknown. 

3. Although abundance and population trends for the jaguar range-wide are not well known 

and populations throughout the species’ range continue to be at risk, the Rosemont 

Copper mine will not have an appreciable impact on the population at the rangewide, 

NRU-specific, or NMU-specific scales. Thus, the proposed action is not expected, 

directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both survival and recovery 

of the jaguar in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of the 

species. 

Proposed Critical Habitat 

Legal Standards and Definitions 

This biological and conference opinion does not rely on the regulatory definition of “destruction 

or adverse modification” of critical habitat at 50 CFR §402.02. Instead, we have relied upon the 

statutory provisions of the Act to complete the following analysis with respect to critical habitat. 

From section 3(3) of the Endangered Species Act: "The terms ‘conserve,’ ‘conserving,’ and 

‘conservation’ mean the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any 

endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided under the 

Endangered Species Act are no longer necessary. Thus, designation of critical habitat helps 

ensure that proposed Federal actions will not result in the adverse modification of habitat to the 

point that the species will not be able achieve recovery, i.e. not able to be removed from the 

threatened or endangered species list. 
146

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, states: “Each Federal 

agency shall...insure that any action funded, authorized, or carried out...is not likely to...result 

in the destruction or adverse modification of (critical) habitat...” (emphasis added). Merriam 

Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, defines “likely” as “1: having a high probability 

of occurring or being true; very probable.” Therefore, in order to reach a conclusion of 

destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat from a Federal action, we must determine 

that preclusion of recovery is “very probable” due to that action.

We used four documents to determine how to analyze whether the threshold for destruction or 

adverse modification will be reached by the proposed action. These include: 1) 2004 guidance 

regarding the application of the “Destruction of Adverse Modification” standard under Section 

7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (FWS 2004); 2) Section 7 Consultation Handbook; 3) the 

proposed rule for jaguar critical habitat; and 4) our letter regarding Incremental Effects for the 

economic analysis for the proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the jaguar (FWS, August 

28, 2012). 

Our 2004 guidance indicates that destruction or adverse modification may be reached when 

critical habitat would not remain functional to serve the intended conservation role for the 

species. 

Our Section 7 Consultation Handbook notes that the adverse modification threshold is exceeded 

when the proposed action will adversely affect the critical habitat’s constituent elements or their 

management in a manner likely to appreciably diminish or preclude the role of that habitat for 

recovery of the species. 

The 2012 proposed rule (FWS 2012b) to designate critical habitat for the jaguar states that 

activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical or 

biological feature and PCEs to an extent that appreciably reduces the conservation value of 

critical habitat for the jaguar. 

The Incremental Effects Letter (FWS August 28, 2012) states that destruction or adverse 

modification is potentially reached when connectivity is severed either between the U.S. and 

Mexico or within a critical habitat unit or subunit. According to the incremental effects letter, 

“major construction projects (such as new highways, significant widening of existing highways), 

or construction of large facilities (such as large mining operations) could constitute adverse 

modification to jaguar critical habitat in both occupied and unoccupied subunits if connectivity 

within a critical habitat unit is severed.” Additionally, the letter states that “major construction 

projects (such as new highways, significant widening of existing highways, or construction of 

large facilities) that could sever connectivity within these critical habitat subunits could 

constitute adverse modification. The most likely unoccupied subunits in which these activities 

may occur are 4b and 4c”. The destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat could 

occur if the function of one or more critical habitat units is affected by, for example, the 

construction of impenetrable fencing across a portion of the currently open areas of vegetated, 

rugged terrain at the U.S.-Mexico border. This could create a situation in which a unit of critical 

habitat could become inaccessible to jaguars. The Incremental Effects Letter (FWS 2012) also 
147

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

states that “The loss of one critical habitat unit would not constitute jeopardy to the species, but it 

could constitute destruction or adverse modification”. 

Therefore, following guidance from each of these four sources and considering the effects noted 

above, it is our conference opinion that implementation of the proposed action will not likely 

destroy or adversely modify proposed critical habitat. We base this conclusion on the following 

rationale: 

Habitat Loss 

1. Although the proposed action will result in the direct loss of proposed critical habitat in 

Unit 3, the majority of Unit 3 will retain its PCEs and function. The security fence and 

roads will permanently remove 4,013 acres of proposed critical habitat in Unit 3. This 

4,013 acres of permanent effects represent 1.1 percent of proposed critical habitat Unit 3 

and 0.47 percent of all proposed critical habitat rangewide. The perimeter fence and 

roads are a long term (25-30 years) effect to 6,304 acres, which represents 1.72 percent of 

proposed critical habitat Unit 3, and 0.73 percent of all proposed critical habitat 

rangewide. Further, proposed conservation measures will permanently protect 1,727 

acres within proposed critical habitat that could otherwise be subject to development or 

other adverse effects. This provides a significant offset (27.3 to 42.8 percent) to the 

habitat expected to be lost.

2. If the constriction of the proposed critical habitat between the proposed Rosemont Mine 

and Imerys Quarry render the northeastern portion of Unit 3 inaccessible (but see 

discussion below), an additional 32,992 acres of Unit 3 would be removed from its 

function in jaguar conservation. The perimeter fence and roads will affect 6,304 acres of 

proposed critical habitat for the long term (25 to 30 years). Adding this acreage to that of 

the inaccessible portion of Unit 3, the areal extent of the long-term loss of proposed 

critical habitat containing all the PCEs to support jaguars would be 39,296 acres. This 

would constitute approximately 10.7 percent of Unit 3 and 4.6 percent of all proposed 

critical habitat rangewide. Adding the acreage of the inaccessible portion of Unit 3 to the 

4,013 acres of proposed critical habitat in which all PCEs are permanently affected by the 

security fence and roads brings the total impact to 37,005 acres. This would constitute a 

permanent loss of 10.1 percent of Unit 3 and 4.3 percent of all proposed critical habitat 

rangewide. Both the long-term and permanent hypothetical losses are partially offset by 

the aforementioned permanent protection of 1,727 acres of conservation lands. Although 

the proposed action could potentially cause long-term and permanent, direct and indirect 

losses of function in Unit 3, function would be retained in 89.3 (long-term) to 89.9 

(permanent) percent of Unit 3 and in 95.4 (long-term) to 95.7 (permanent) percent of all 

proposed critical habitat.

3. If the lost function of northeastern Unit 3 analyzed in Item 2, above, removed the 

connectivity-to-Mexico role of the 12,710-acre Subunit 4b and also rendered the 62,478-

acre Subunit 4a inaccessible via northeast Unit 3, the resulting 75,188-acre loss of 

function would represent 8.8 percent of the overall proposed critical habitat (7.3 percent 
148

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

in Subunit 4a, 1.5 percent in Subunit 4b). We note, however, that connectivity to Mexico 

for Subunit 4a exists through Subunit 4c and the southeastern portion of Unit 3 in the 

Huachuca Mountains, regardless of the potential functional loss of Subunit 4b. 

4. When the 6,304 acres occupied by the perimeter fence and roads are added to the 

potential for a functional losses of 32,992 acres of northeastern Unit 3 and all of the 

12,719-acre Subunit 4b (as in Items 2 and 3, above), there would be a 52,006-acre longterm loss of function within the 379,325-acre combined area of Unit 3 and Subunit 4b. 

Considering the 4,013-acre security-fenced area and roads, there would be a 49,715-acre 

permanent loss of function to the combined area of Unit 3 and Subunit 4b. Under these 

hypothetical scenarios, function would be retained in 86.3 to 86.9 percent of the 

combined acreage of Unit 3 and Subunit 4b and in 93.9 to 94.2 percent of all proposed 

critical habitat. We reiterate that connectivity to Mexico for Subunit 4a exists through 

Subunit 4c and the southeastern portion of Unit 3 in the Huachuca Mountains, regardless 

of the potential functional loss of Subunit 4b. We again note that both the long-term and 

permanent potential losses would be partially offset by the aforementioned permanent 

protection of 1,727 acres of conservation lands. 

 

5. When the 6,304 acres occupied by the perimeter fence and roads are added to the 

potential for a functional losses of 32,992 acres of northeastern Unit 3, the 62,478-acre 

Subunit 4a, and the 12,719-acre Subunit 4b (as in Items 2 and 3, above), there would be a 

114,484-acre long-term loss of function within the 441,803-acre combined area of Unit 3 

and Subunits 4a and 4b. Considering the 4,013-acre security-fenced area and roads, there 

would be a 112,193-acre permanent loss of function to the combined area of Unit 3 and 

Subunits 4a and 4b. Under these hypothetical. Worst-case scenarios, function would be 

retained in 74.1 to 74.6 percent of the combined acreage of Unit 3 and Subunits 4a and 4b 

and in 86.7 to 86.9 percent of all proposed critical habitat. We reiterate that connectivity 

to Mexico for Subunit 4a exists through Subunit 4c and the southeastern portion of Unit 3 

in the Huachuca Mountains, regardless of the potential functional loss of Subunit 4b; and 

that both the long-term and permanent potential losses would be partially offset by the 

aforementioned permanent protection of 1,727 acres of conservation lands. 

Effects to Jaguar Movement 

In order to reach a conclusion that the proposed action is “likely” to result in destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat, the analysis would have to show a “high probability” for 

each of the following: (1) that the jaguar would be unable to traverse the constricted area in Unit 

3 and access Subunit 4b; (2) that such a preclusion would render Subunits 4b and 4a inaccessible 

to jaguars and/or preclude connectivity between the U.S. and Mexico; and (3) that both of those 

results would preclude or significantly diminish the conservation value of proposed critical 

habitat for jaguar recovery. It is our conference opinion that the standard of “highly probable” is 

not met for any of these arguments singly, let alone all of them combined. 

1. Our analysis makes a plausible argument that jaguar movement between units 3 and 4b 

will become somewhat restricted, but does not reach the level that such movement will 
149

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

likely be precluded. Known male jaguars have been documented as having traveled 

widely around southern Arizona in recent years, apparently despite the presence of 

numerous roads, lit areas, and other human disturbances. Even if movement through the 

constricted corridor were completely blocked, our analysis would have to show that 

precluding such movement would appreciably reduce the functionality of the currently 

proposed array of critical habitat. Two arguments might be made in this regard: that both 

units 4a and 4b will become inaccessible to jaguars if movement through the 1.5 km strip 

is curtailed, thus removing another 8.8 percent of critical habitat (7.3 percent in 4a, 1.5 

percent in 4b) (see Item 3 in Habitat Loss analysis, above); and that preclusion of this 

connectivity will significantly impair jaguar movement into and out of Mexico. Neither 

of these arguments is adequately supported by the best available information. Further, 

we have analyzed three other hypothetical combinations, including: (1) the loss of 

function in Subunits 4a and 4b (see Item 3 under Habitat Loss section, above); (2) the 

effects of the action, the loss of function in Unit 3 and Subunit 4b (see Item 4, above); 

and (3) the effects of the action, the loss of function in Unit 3 and Subunits 4a and 4b (see 

Item 5, above). These hypothetical, and increasingly worst-case effects, are similarly 

unsupported by the best available information. 

2. Although we know that a jaguar moved from the Whetstones (Unit 4a) to the Santa Ritas 

(Unit 3), we do not know what travel pathway it took. Subunit 4b connects Units 4a and 

3; however, we have no evidence that 4b has ever been or ever will be used by a jaguar, 

and it is difficult for us to determine whether Subunit 4b is so important to jaguar 

movement that loss of this connectivity would lead to an adverse modification 

conclusion. Furthermore, there are other connections between Units 3 and 4 within 

Subunit 4c. Finally, the occupied critical habitat in both the Whetstones and the Santa 

Ritas remains connected to Mexico through at least two mountain ranges (the Patagonia 

and Huachuca mountains). 

3. Supposing that connectivity between Unit 3 and Subunit 4a were completely precluded, 

and that such preclusion would sever connectivity to Mexico, we would then analyze the 

effect these factors would have on the conservation (recovery) of the jaguar. Three of the 

four guidance documents mentioned above - the 2004 guidance regarding the application 

of the “Destruction of Adverse Modification” standard under Section 7(a)(2) of the 

Endangered Species Act (FWS 2004), the Section 7 Consultation Handbook, and the 

proposed rule for jaguar critical habitat) - refer to either “conservation” or “recovery” of 

the species under analysis. 

The question then becomes “What constitutes jaguar recovery?” The Jaguar Recovery Team, in 

its Recovery Outline for the species (FWS 2012a), recognizes the “Northwestern Recovery Unit” 

(NRU). By definition, the NRU is Essential to the recovery of the species rangewide. Therefore, 

we are analyzing the effect of the overall impact to critical habitat at the recovery unit level 

rather than rangewide. As described above, the proposed action may impact five out of eight 

recovery objectives in the Jaguar Recovery Outline (FWS 2012a), including the following: (1) 

Assess, protect, and restore sufficient habitat to support viable populations of jaguars in the two 

recovery units; (2) Mediate or mitigate the effects of human population growth and development 
150

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

on jaguar survival and mortality where possible; (3) Reduce direct human-caused (i.e., illegal 

and legal killing) mortality of jaguars; (4) Reduce illegal hunting of jaguar prey and improve 

regulation of legal hunting where appropriate; and (5) Maintain or improve genetic fitness, 

demographic conditions, and health of the jaguar. Although these objectives may be affected by 

the proposed project, by itself, it is unlikely that the level of the effect will lead to measurable 

delays in the recovery of jaguars within the NRU.

We also examined the effects of the proposed action in relation to the definition of 

“conservation”. 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 under the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods 

and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources 

management such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, 

propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking”. 

The proposed action should have no significant effect on any of these activities. 

Finally we examine the “Incremental Effects memo” which postulates, for purposes of assessing 

the economic impacts of proposed critical habitat, scenarios where an adverse modification 

opinion may occur. That memo says, in part, that adverse modification may result if “major 

construction projects (such as new highways, significant widening of existing highways), or 

construction of large facilities (such as large mining operations) could constitute adverse 

modification to jaguar critical habitat in both occupied and unoccupied subunits if connectivity 

within a critical habitat unit is severed.” Additionally, the letter states that “major construction 

projects (such as new highways, significant widening of existing highways, or construction of 

large facilities) that could sever connectivity within these critical habitat subunits could 

constitute adverse modification. The most likely unoccupied subunits in which these activities 

may occur are 4b and 4c”. The best available information indicates that connectivity is not likely 

to be “severed” by the proposed action. 

Losing a portion of Unit 3 and possibly reducing connectivity to Subunit 4a, both areas 

considered by the proposed rule as essential to the conservation of jaguars, reduces the ability of 

critical habitat to function as intended by the proposed rule and somewhat diminishes the 

conservation value of critical habitat as a whole. That said, because the vast majority of critical 

habitat will be unaffected by the proposed action, its value will not be appreciably reduced. 

Overall, critical habitat will retain its function and ability to contribute to survival and recovery 

of the jaguar. 

 

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT - JAGUAR

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act, prohibit take of 

endangered or threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. “Take” is defined as 

to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage 

in any such conduct. “Harm” is further defined to include significant habitat modification or 

degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral 
151

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. “Harass” is defined in the regulations as ``an 

intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by 

annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which 

include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR §17.3). Incidental take is 

defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out an otherwise lawful 

activity. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and 

not intended as part of the proposed action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the 

Act provided such taking is in compliance with this Incidental Take Statement. 

The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be included by the USFS as 

binding conditions of any grant or permit issued to the applicant, as appropriate, for the 

exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The USFS has a continuing duty to regulate the activity 

that is covered by this Incidental Take Statement. If the USFS (1) fails to assume and implement 

the terms and conditions, or (2) fails to require the applicant to adhere to the terms and 

conditions of this incidental take statement through enforceable terms that are added to the 

permit or grant document, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to 

monitor the impact of incidental take, the USFS, or the applicant must report the progress of the 

action and its impact on the species as specified in the Incidental Take Statement (see 50 CFR 

402.14(I)(3)). 

Amount or Extent of Take Anticipated 

Confirmed jaguar detections have occurred within the action area as recently as October 2013. 

The detections were from trail cameras placed by resident hunters and/or researchers from the 

University of Arizona – jaguar and ocelot survey and monitoring project funded by the FWS and 

the Department of Homeland Security. All detections were located on lands administered by the 

Coronado National Forest, photographed at night, and all are suspected to be of a single male 

jaguar. One of the detections was from a trail camera located to the west of and adjacent to the 

proposed action area. Thus, incidental take of a jaguar is likely to occur because trail cameras 

have detected a male jaguar within the area subject to direct and/or indirect effects of the 

proposed (the action area). 

Incidental take of one jaguar over the life of the project in the form of harassment is anticipated 

for the following activity: 

1. Disturbance of jaguars due to construction, operation, and restoration of the mine and 

associated roads which disrupts normal behavior patterns which include, but are not 

limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering. Construction and operation of the mine is 

anticipated to cause jaguars to shift home range location and travel longer distances, 

possibly through less suitable habitat. Extra travel would require jaguars to expend 

additional energy and increase the potential for encounters with humans, vehicles, 

potential competitors, and other stresses. 

We anticipate the above anticipated incidental take will be difficult to detect. However, 

monitoring and reporting requirements will allow us to assess the effects of proposed project 
152

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

activities on jaguars. In addition, Rosemont will report to us any mortality or injury of jaguars 

due to collisions with vehicles or other activities. The amount of anticipated incidental take will 

have been exceeded, triggering a requirement for reinitiation (50 CFR §402.16[c]) if, for 

example: 

1. Based on the annual and emergency reporting on the status of the proposed project: 

a. A jaguar is injured or killed through collision with a vehicle(s) associated with the 

proposed project; 

b. Unanticipated events occur that are attributable to the proposed action (e.g. toxic 

spills or plumes, wildfires, landslides) that are reasonably certain to have resulted 

in take; or 

c. Additional jaguars are documented in the action area that are reasonably certain to 

be taken by the proposed action. 

In summary, and stated differently, the maximum allowable incidental take of jaguar is the 

harassment of one individual. 

Effect of the Take 

We conclude that this level of anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the jaguar, for 

the effects are not expected to appreciably reduce the survival and recovery of the species. 

Jaguars range from southern United States all the way to Argentina and thus, take of one jaguar 

in the form of harassment in the U.S. will not jeopardize the species. 

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES 

The FWS believes the following Reasonable and Prudent Measures are necessary and 

appropriate to minimize impacts of incidental take of jaguar: 

1. Minimize the effects of disturbance from noise and roads to the jaguar. 

2. Monitor jaguars in the Santa Rita Mountains. 

3. Monitor incidental take resulting from the proposed action and report to the FWS the 

findings of that monitoring. 

TERMS AND CONDITIONS 

To be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, Rosemont shall comply with the 

following Terms and Conditions, which implement the Reasonable and Prudent Measures 

described above and outline required reporting and monitoring requirements. These terms and 

conditions are non-discretionary. 

1. The following Terms and Conditions implement Reasonable and Prudent Measure 

Number 1: 
153

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

a. Minimize road-related noise, especially at night, through the use of techniques such as 

avoiding, to the extent practicable (i.e., that allows for safe driving conditions), horn use 

and “Jake-braking” (the use of an engine’s compression combined with downshifting the 

transmission to slow a vehicle). Compliance with this Term and Condition may be 

demonstrated by placing signs advising vehicle operators to not employ “Jake-brakes” at 

both ends and the midpoint of the primary access road. 

b. Limit speeds on the primary and secondary access roads and the Sycamore connector 

road no more than 25 miles per hour and employ the use of wildlife crossing signs. Speed 

limits will be made known to employees and contractors during safety training or 

equivalent and via the use of speed limit signs. Compliance with this term and condition 

may be demonstrated by placing speed limit signs in appropriate locations. Compliance 

may also be demonstrated by placing signs cautioning vehicle operators of the presence 

of wildlife both ends and the midpoint of the primary access road and at any other 

locations determined necessary by the Biological Monitor and/or other entities (while 

implementing the wildlife movement-related Conservation Measure). 

2. The following Term and Condition implements Reasonable and Prudent Measure 

Number 2: 

Rosemont shall conduct (or provide funding to conduct) jaguar surveys and monitoring 

for the life of the proposed mine plus the 5-year post-closure period. Jaguar surveys and 

monitoring shall be conducted by a contractor with expertise in large felid survey and 

monitoring, sampling design, GIS, and data analysis. Objectives of the study include, but 

are not limited to the following: (1) determine if the male jaguar previously detected near 

the proposed mine continues to use the area; (2) determine if additional jaguars are 

present in the vicinity of the mine; (3) gather basic information on jaguar movement and 

habitat use patterns in the vicinity of the mine, including, if possible, determining travel 

routes; and (4) enable operations to take into account the presence of jaguars in the 

immediate vicinity. The exact design, scope, and location of the study will be determined 

in the study plan and updated as needed to gather the best possible information on 

jaguars. Unless another study design of equal or lesser effort is determined to be 

potentially more scientifically effective (i.e., to allow for the best scientific information 

possible to be obtained), surveys and monitoring will be conducted for the first five years 

in a 200 km2

area of jaguar proposed critical habitat roughly centered on the perimeter 

fence of the mine. Jaguars detected in this area will then be subject to focused 

monitoring. We note that 200km2 is the largest, radio-telemetered home range noted 

from the northern portion of the species range by Rosas-Rosas and Bender (2012) (see 

Home Range and Movement section, above). After five years, FWS, FS, other entities, 

and Rosemont will meet to discuss and determine if the existing study design should be 

continued with the same level of effort, or if a new study design with a similar level of 

effort should be employed; the goal of either effort will be to continue to obtain the best 

information possible on jaguars in the action area. Rosemont shall implement the new 

study design, if warranted, for the life of project plus the 5-year post-closure period, 

unless another design of equal or lesser effort is determined to be more effective. 
154

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

All jaguar detections will be reported to FWS and AGFD within 24 hours. 

Jaguar survey and monitoring must commence prior to significant surface disturbance. 

Jaguar survey and monitoring will be conducted through non-invasive means, including, 

but not limited to the use of trail cameras,, and/or scat-detection dogs. Prior to the 

commencement of any field work: (1) a study plan (draft and final) will be submitted to 

and approved by the FWS and other entities; and (2) all necessary permits will be 

obtained, copies of which must be sent to FWS and other entities as applicable. 

The study plan will include, among other information: (1) the study objectives; (2) a 

detailed description of survey and monitoring methods and analysis techniques to be 

employed, including the location and spatial array of paired cameras, track plots, or scatdetection dog transects, and frequency with which photos will be downloaded and viewed 

(at least monthly), track plots read, or scat-detection transects ran; (3) a communications 

plan that explains, among other things, how jaguar detections will be relayed to the FWS, 

AGFD, and the general public; and how media requests will be handled; (4) reporting 

format and schedule (reporting will include draft and final reports, as well as monthly 

updates); and (5) qualifications of the survey and monitoring team. All aspects of the 

study plan and implementation of the plan (including, but not limited to, who will 

conduct the study, how the study will be conducted, and when reports will be due) must 

be coordinated with FWS and other entities and approved by FWS. Additionally, all 

survey and monitoring efforts must be coordinated with the FWS, FS, other entities, 

affected land owners and managers, and other parties determined to be appropriate by the 

FWS. 

The aforementioned survey and monitoring effort expands on the Conservation Measure 

in the Description of the Proposed Action of the BA which states “Rosemont will provide 

$50,000 to AGFD or other suitable entity approved by the CNF to support camera studies 

for large predators including jaguar and ocelot. The money will be provided for 

additional monitoring efforts between the Santa Rita and the Whetstone Mountains and 

along the Santa Rita Mountains. In addition to increasing knowledge regarding the 

movement of wildlife in the area, information collected during this investigation may 

identify a suitable wildlife crossing structure location.” Please note that AGFD has 

requested that the agency not be referred to within task-oriented conservation measures; it 

only appears here due to the agency name appearing in quoted text. Reasonable and 

Prudent Measure Number 1 is required because the $50,000 camera study identified in 

the Conservation Measures is a small fraction of funding needed to conduct jaguar 

surveys and monitoring for the life of the proposed mine, plus 5-year post-closure period. 

To reduce study redundancy and possible disturbance to jaguars in the area, this 

Conservation Measure and the aforementioned survey and monitoring effort should be 

conducted by the same entity. 

3. The following Term and Condition implements Reasonable and Prudent Measure 

Number 3: 
155

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

To monitor incidental take resulting from the proposed action, Rosemont shall monitor 

the impacts of the action as they relate to jaguar and report these to the FWS for the life 

of the project. A report will be due to the FWS annually on March 1. The report will 

include a description of the action implemented, including conservation measures and 

reasonable and prudent measures. Emergencies and any unanticipated events that may 

cause take to be exceeded will be reported immediately (at a maximum within 24 hours) 

to the Arizona Ecological Services Office Field Supervisor via email and telephone. 

Review requirement: The FWS believes that no more than one jaguar will be incidentally taken 

(in the form of harassment) as a result of the proposed action. The reasonable and prudent 

measures, with their implementing terms and conditions, are designed to minimize incidental 

take that might otherwise result from the proposed action. If, during the course of the action, the 

level of incidental take is exceeded, such incidental take would represent new information 

requiring review of the reasonable and prudent measures provided. FS must immediately 

provide an explanation of the causes of the taking and review with the FWS-AESO the need for 

possible modification of the reasonable and prudent measures. 

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS - JAGUAR 

Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the 

purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and 

threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to 

minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to 

help implement recovery plans, or to develop information. 

We recommend that the Forest Service and Rosemont further minimize the effects of night 

lighting and noise within the action area by: 

a. Minimizing the light levels and the distance light emanates from the project site through 

the use of techniques such as decreasing the use of bright lights, employing methods to 

deflect lights coming out of project site, and minimizing the lights coming from buildings 

at the project site; 

b. Coordinating the aforementioned Conservation Recommendations with FWS and other 

entities before the measures are employed. 
156

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Figure J-1: Northwestern Jaguar Recovery Unit 
157

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Figure J-2: Map showing the proposed action within proposed critical habitat Unit 3 in relation to Critical Habitat Unit 4 

(Subunits a, b, and c). 
158

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Figure J-3: Proposed Rosemont Mine Project and Jaguar Critical Habitat. 
159

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

 

Figure J-4: Simulated light (horizontal) levels as a result of the proposed Rosemont Mine project in relation to jaguar critical 

habitat (Figure 6 of WestLand Resources Inc, 2012). Please note that this map uses a version of the proposed critical habitat 

boundaries superseded by the July 1, 2013, revised proposed rule (78 FR 39237). 
160

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Figure J-5: Map showing nighttime lighting (based on data provided to FWS by the Wildlife Conservation Society) from the 

current Imerys Quarry (purple area) in relation to the proposed Rosemont mine and proposed jaguar critical habitat.
161

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Imerys Quarry 

Figure J-6: Image of the currently operating mine known as Imerys Quarry located north of the proposed action at night. Image 

is from Blue Marble Navigator 2012 (http://www.blue-marble.de/nightlights/2012).
162

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Figure J-7: Proposed location of the Sycamore Canyon Connector Road and existing National Forest System Roads.
163

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Figure J-8: The proposed action within proposed critical habitat Unit 3 and the distances between the perimeter fence of the 

proposed action and the active mine to the north (i.e., Imerys Quarry). Note that the area of the northeastern portion of Unit 3 

between the 1.5km line and the western boundary of Subunit 4b is 32,992 acres (13,351 hectares).
164

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Figure J-9: Maximum noise contours for surface blasting (Tetra Tech 2009) 
165

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Figure J-10: Maximum noise contours for in-pit blasting (Tetra Tech 2009)
166

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Figure J-11: Maximum noise contours for construction activities (Tetra Tech 2009)
167

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Status of the Species - Ocelot 

Description, Legal Status, and Recovery Planning

The ocelot (Leopardus pardalis), a medium-sized spotted cat, belongs to the genus Leopardus

which also includes the margay (Leopardus wiedii) and the oncilla (Leopardus tigrinus). The 

ocelot is divided into as many as 11 subspecies that ranged from the southwestern U.S. to 

northern Argentina (FWS 2010). Two subspecies occur in the United States: the Texas ocelot 

(L. pardalis albescens) and the Sonora ocelot (L. p. sonoriensis) (Hall 1981). 

The ocelot was listed as endangered in 1972 under the authority of the Endangered Species 

Conservation Act of 1969 (FWS 1972). The 1969 Act maintained separate lists for foreign and 

native wildlife. The ocelot appeared on the foreign list, but due to an oversight, not on the native 

list. Following passage of the ESA in 1973, the ocelot was included on the January 4, 1974, list 

of “Endangered Foreign Wildlife” that “grandfathered” species from the lists under the 1969 Act 

into a new list under the ESA (FWS 1974). The entry for the ocelot included “Central and South 

America” under the “Where found” column in the new ESA list. Endangered status was 

extended to the U.S. portion of the ocelot’s range with a final rule published July 21, 1982 

(FWS 1982). The “Historic range” column for the ocelot’s entry in the rule reads, “U.S.A. (TX, 

AZ) south through Central America to South America.” The entry on the current list (FWS 

2003) is essentially the same, and reads, “U.S.A. (TX, AZ) to Central and South America”. The 

ocelot was upgraded to CITES Appendix I in 1986 (Nowell and Jackson 1996) and is considered 

endangered in Mexico (SEMARNAT 2002). 

The species has a recovery priority number of 5C, meaning that it has a low potential for 

recovery with a relatively high degree of conflict. Recovery for the ocelot was originally 

addressed in Listed Cats of Texas and Arizona Recovery Plan (with Emphasis on the Ocelot)

(FWS 1990). A draft revised recovery plan was made available for public comment in 2010 

(FWS 2010), with the goal of improving the status of the species to the point that it no longer 

needs the protection of the ESA. The draft revised recovery plan has not been finalized as of the 

date of this biological opinion. The draft recovery strategy calls for 1) the assessment, 

protection, and restoration of sufficient habitat to support viable populations of the ocelot in the 

borderlands of the U.S. and Mexico; 2) the reduction of effects of human population growth and 

development to ocelot survival and mortality; 3) the maintenance or improvement of genetic 

fitness, demographic conditions, and health of the ocelot; 4) the assurance of long-term viability 

of ocelot conservation through partnerships, the development and application of incentives for 

landowners, application of existing regulations, and public education and outreach; 5) the use of 

adaptive management, in which recovery is monitored and recovery tasks are revised by the 

FWS in coordination with the Recovery Team as new information becomes available; and 6) the 

support of international efforts to ascertain the status and conservation of the ocelot in Sonora 

and south of Tamaulipas. 

The major focus of the draft revised recovery plan is on two cross-border management units, the 

Texas/Tamaulipas Management Unit and the Arizona/Sonora Management Unit (ASMU). The 
168

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

boundaries of the ASMU is defined as the original range of the subspecies (L. p. sonoriensis) as 

described by Hall (1981) which generally extends from central Arizona south to central Sinaloa. 

Delisting criteria for the ASMU are: 1) the ASMU population is estimated through reliable 

scientific monitoring to be above 2,000 animals for 10 years; 2) significant threats to this 

population have been identified and addressed; 3) habitat linkages to facilitate an ASMU 

metapopulation have been identified and are conserved for the foreseeable future. 

Life History and Habitat 

The ocelot is a medium-sized spotted cat weighing from 7-16 kg (15-35 lbs), with males 

weighing more than females (FWS 2010). The coloration of the upper parts of the body is pale 

gray to cinnamon. There are spots on the head, two black stripes on the cheeks, and four to five 

longitudinal black stripes on the neck. The body shows elongated black-edged spots arranged in 

chain-like bands. The rounded ears are black dorsally, with a conspicuous white spot. The 

underparts are whitish, spotted with black. The tail is marked with dark bars or incomplete rings 

(Hall 1981). 

The life history of the ocelot has been summarized by Laack (1991), Laack et al. (1991 and 

2005), Tewes and Schmidly (1987), and others. Ocelots may live greater than 10 years in the 

wild and can live longer (18 years plus) in captivity (Murray and Gardner 1997). Gestation lasts 

about 70-80 days, and breeding reaches a peak during autumn in Texas (Tewes and Schmidly 

1987); however breeding peaks may vary throughout the ocelot range. Wild ocelots probably 

first produce young at about 18 to 30 months-of-age (Eaton 1977, Tewes and Schmidly 1987), 

although Laack (1991) observed first reproduction in wild female ocelots between 30 and 45 

months-of-age. Average litter size is about 1 to 1.5 kittens per litter (Laack et al. 2005, Mora et 

al. 2000, Murray and Gardner 1997). Males are believed to contribute little to direct parental 

care (Tewes 1986, Laack 1991) and young may become independent at one year of age (Murray 

and Gardner 1997). There is little information on the interval between successive litters in the 

wild, but it is likely two years (Murray and Gardner 1997, FWS 2010). 

Although ocelots usually disperse from the natal range, sometimes females may remain in their 

natal range (Laack 1991). The age at which subadult ocelots disperse from the natal range 

varies, but is about two years of age (Ludlow and Sunquest 1987, Laack 1991). Laack (1991) 

found that there was no obvious sex difference in age at dispersal and that duration of successful 

dispersal (time elapsed between leaving natal range and establishing an independent home range) 

was 7 to 9.5 months. Studies have shown that dispersal distance varies considerably, for 

example, in Texas, dispersal distances have been documented between 2.5 km and 42.5 km 

(Navarro-Lopez 1985, Tewes 1986, Laack 1991, FWS 2010). The longest documented dispersal 

distance (50 km/31 miles) that we are aware of was of a male ocelot in Tamaulipas, Mexico 

(Booth-Binczik 2007). 

No studies have documented dispersal distance of ocelots in Sonora and Arizona; however, a 

subadult male ocelot was documented in Arizona in 2010 just west of Globe (it was killed by a 

car) (Holbrook et al. 2011). Ocelots have also been recently detected in the Whetstone (detected 

in 2009) (Avila-Villegas and Jessica Lamberton-Moreno 2012) and Huachuca Mountains 
169

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

(detections from 2011 to 2013) (email from Tim Snow, AGFD, March 13, 2013). The nearest 

recently (in 2011) documented female with young (one kitten) was located about 48 km (30 

miles) south of the international border in the Sierra Azul of Sonora, Mexico (Avila-Villegas and 

Jessica Lamberton-Moreno 2012). If ocelots documented in Globe and the Huachuca and 

Whetstone mountains dispersed from the nearest breeding population, assuming the nearest 

breeding population is the one previously mentioned, it means the ocelots moved about 220 km 

(135 miles) to Globe; 55 km (35 miles) to the Huachuca Mountains (email from Tim Snow, 

AGFD, March 18, 2013), and 110 km (70 miles) to the Whetstone Mountains (Avila-Villegas 

and Jessica Lamberton-Moreno 2012). Avila-Villegas and Jessica Lamberton-Moreno (2012), 

however, believe that travel from northern Sonora to Globe seems unlikely. 

Ocelots are solitary animals that maintain home ranges (Emmons 1988, Ludlow and Sunquist 

1987, Laack 1991, Crawshaw 1995). Home range for the ocelot varies throughout its range. 

Adult female home range sizes vary from approximately 2 km2to 17 km2(494 to 4,201 acres) 

while adult male home range sizes vary from approximately 5 km2to 38 km2(1,235 to 9,390 

acres), both depending on the habitat type in which they are found (Tewes 1986, Ludlow and 

Sunquist, 1987, Crawshaw and Quigley 1989, Emmons 1988, Konecny 1989, Laack 1991, Caso 

1994, Crawshaw 1995, Fernandez 2002). In the Tamaulipan thornscrub of south Texas and 

northeastern Mexico, mean ocelot home range sizes reported include: Laack (1991): 6.2 km2

(1,544 acres) for males, 2.87 km2 (709 acres) for females; Navarro-Lopez (1985): 2.5 km2(623 

acres) for males, 2.1 km2

(512 acres) for females; Tewes (1986): 12.3 km2(3,039 acres) for 

males and 7.0 km2(1,730 acres) for females; and Caso (1994): 8.1 km2 (2,006 acres) for males, 

9.6 km2

(2,372 acres) for females. No home range studies have been done for ocelots in Arizona 

or northwestern Mexico. However, in western Mexico, specifically, in the tropical deciduous 

forest of Jalisco, average home range size using the Kernel estimator for male ocelots was 11.7 

km2(2,891 acres) and for females was 5.8 km2 (1,433 acres); average home range size using the 

95% Minimum Convex Polygon estimator was 16.26 km2(4,018 acres) for males and 7.34 km2 

(1,814 acres) for females (Fernandez 2002). 

Ocelots inhabit a wide variety of densely vegetated habitat types, including, but not limited to, 

thorn scrub, semi-arid woodland, tropical deciduous and semi-deciduous forest, subtropical 

forest, lowland rainforest, palm savanna, and seasonally flooded savanna woodland (Tewes 

1986, Ludlow and Sunquist 1987, Crawshaw and Quigley 1989, Crawshaw 1995, Fernandez 

2002). In south Texas, ocelots occur predominantly in dense thornscrub communities (NavarroLopez 1985, Tewes 1986, Laack 1991). Laack (1991) also documented minimal use of 

Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) by ocelots. Caso (1994) found ocelots used primarily forest 

or woody communities in Tamaulipas, Mexico, and used the open pastures much less often. 

In Sonora, López González et al. (2003) reported 27 of 36 (75%) of verified ocelot records in 

Sonora were associated with tropical or subtropical habitats, namely subtropical thornscrub, 

tropical deciduous forest and tropical thornscrub; a few ocelots were recorded in oak woodlands, 

but were all males. The mean elevation of the 33 records located with precision was 700 +/- 450 

meters (2,297 +/- 1,476 feet), at which altitudes subtropical thornscrub is the main habitat (López 

González et al. 2003). They report that ocelots were associated largely with the mountainous 

Sierra region of eastern Sonora and that records closer to the Sonoran desert biome were mainly 
170

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

associated with riparian areas, where the shrub cover is relatively thicker than the surrounding 

areas. Avila-Villegas and Jessica Lamberton-Moreno (2012) collected 68 camera photographs of 

ocelots in the Sierra Azul in northern Sonora, all of which were taken at elevation ranges 

between 1,275 and 1,625 meters (4,183 and 5,331 feet) in Madrean evergreen woodland. 

Of the four ocelot recently recorded in Arizona, the one in the Whetstone Mountains was 

documented (via remote camera) in Madrean evergreen woodland (Avila-Villegas and Jessica 

Lamberton-Moreno 2012); and, based on photographs, the two in the Huachuca Mountains most 

likely occur in Madrean Lower Montane Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland (email from Tim Snow, 

AGFD, March 13, 2013). This habitat is described as from 1,710 to 2,560 meters (5,600 to 8,400 

feet), containing more than 50 percent oak, and can hold dense manzanita, silk tassel, and 

silverleaf oak (email from Tim Snow, AGFD, March 13, 2013). 

Despite the variation in habitat use, the species does not appear to be a habitat generalist. Ocelot 

spatial patterns are strongly linked to dense cover or vegetation, suggesting it uses a fairly 

narrow range of microhabitats (Emmons 1988, Horne 1998). Horne (1998), in southern Texas, 

was the first to statistically analyze ocelot habitat selection patterns. He found ocelots used 

closed (>95% canopy closure) cover types more than cover types with less-than-moderate 

canopy cover and avoided mixed cover type (50-75% canopy closure). Also in southern Texas, 

Jackson et al. (2005) suggested that ocelots prefer closed canopy over other land cover types, but 

that areas used by this species tended to consist of more patches with greater edge. No habitat 

use studies have been conducted in Arizona or Sonora. 

Ocelots are generally active for more than half of each 24-hour period and are typically most 

active at night and during crepuscular periods with more limited diurnal activity (Ludlow and 

Sunquist 1987, Crawshaw and Quigley 1989, Fernandez 2002, Avila-Villegas and Jessica 

Lamberton-Moreno 2012). Ocelots are likely generally nocturnal because they follow the 

nocturnal habits of their primary prey, small mammals (Ludlow and Sunquist 1987, Emmons 

1988, and Crawshaw and Quigley 1989). 

Ocelots are solitary hunters and eat a wide variety of prey, but small mammals, especially 

rodents, comprise most of their diet (Emmons 1987, Ludlow and Sunquist 1987, Crawshaw 

1995, De Villa Meza et al. 2002, Fernandez 2002). Ocelot diets, however, also include medium 

to large mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds, fishes, and insects (Emmons 1987, De Villa Meza 

et al. 2002, Fernandez 2002). Based on these results some authors have suggested that ocelots 

are opportunistic feeders (Bisbal 1986, Emmons 1987). 

Distribution and Abundance

Ocelots historically ranged from Louisiana, Arkansas, Texas, and Arizona in the U.S. southward 

through Mexico, Central and South America to Peru and northern Argentina (Murray and 

Gardner 1997). Currently, the ocelot ranges from extreme southern Texas and southern Arizona 

through Mexico and Central America to Ecuador and northern Argentina (Murray and Gardner 

1997, FWS 2010). In Mexico, it has disappeared from much of its historic range on the west 

coast (Caso et al. 2008). There are reports of the species up to 3,000 meters (9,842 feet) (Caso et 

al. 2008). 
171

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Estimating population sizes of secretive nocturnal carnivores, especially species that inhabit 

dense vegetative cover, such as the ocelot, is difficult. Currently the U.S. population of the 

Texas ocelot subspecies has fewer than 100 individuals, found in two separated populations in 

southern Texas (FWS 2010). A third and larger population of the Texas/Tamaulipas ocelot 

subspecies occurs more than 200 km (~124 mi) south of the Texas/Mexico border in the Sierra of 

Tamaulipas, Mexico (Caso 1994). 

In Arizona, four individuals have recently been documented, including the following: 1) one 

ocelot in the Whetstone Mountains in 2009; 2) one subadult male (road-killed) near Globe in 

2010; 3) one male in the Huachuca Mountains in 2011; and 4) one ocelot (sex unknown) in the 

Huachuca Mountains in 2012 (email from Tim Snow, AGFD, March 13, 2013). Both ocelots in 

the Huachuca Mountains have been re-detected on multiple occasions. However, detections of 

ocelots in southern Arizona remain an uncommon occurrence. 

In addition to the recent Arizona sightings, a number of ocelots have been documented just south 

of the U.S. border in Sonora, Mexico. Specifically, with the use of camera traps, six ocelots 

were documented between February 2007 and April 2011 in the Sierra Azul, about 30 miles 

southeast of Nogales, including two males, one female, one kitten, and two of undetermined sex 

(Avila-Villegas and Jessica Lamberton-Moreno 2012). Additionally, one ocelot was 

documented in 2009 in the Sierra de Los Ajos, about 30 miles south of the U.S. border near 

Naco, Mexico (FWS 2010). 

In Sonora, López González et al. (2003) obtained 36 verified ocelot records, 21 of which were 

obtained after 1990, including 19 individual male records, 6 females, and 11 of undetermined 

sex. A population of 2,025 + 675 ocelots in Sonora was estimated by López González et al. 

(2003) based on the distribution of these records and the availability of potential habitat. Out of 

the 26 records, the northern-most record of a female was at 30°30’ latitude and only one record 

was of a kitten (located in the southern part of Sonora) (López González et al. 2003). 

Although methods used to calculate densities vary among studies, some ocelot population 

density estimates for particular habitats include: 5.7/100 km2(38.6 miles2) in subtropical 

thornscrub to tropical deciduous forest in Sonora, Mexico (Carrillo and López González 2002); 

25/100 km2to 225/100 km2in the tropical deciduous forest of Jalisco (Casariego Madorell 1998; 

Fernandez 2002); 30 adult ocelots/100 km2in Bolivian dry-forests (Maffei et al. (2005); and 40 

adult ocelots/100 km2in the llanos (interspersed dry tropical forest in savanna) of central 

Venezuela (Ludlow and Sunquist 1987). 

Threats 

Although the ocelot is protected over most of its range (Fuller et al. 1987), it is still threatened by 

habitat loss and fragmentation due to increased human development, agriculture, and cattle 

grazing; illegal killing (e.g., retaliatory killing due to depredation of poultry); and illegal trade 

(pet and pelt) (Fernandez 2002, FWS 2010, Caso et al. 2008). Widespread commercial harvests 

for the fur trade ceased decades ago (Caso et al. 2008); however, human population growth and 
172

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

development continue throughout the ocelot’s range. Connectivity among ocelot populations or 

colonization of new habitats is discouraged by the proliferation of highways and increased road 

mortality among dispersing ocelots. Increased illegal and law enforcement actions along the 

Mexico-United States border could limit ocelot movement across the border, but it is uncertain if 

and how much this is affecting that movement. 

In Texas, collisions with motor vehicles appear to be the leading cause of known ocelot mortality 

and accounted for 45 percent of deaths of 80 radio-tagged ocelots between 1983 and 2002 (FWS 

2010). Twenty-six of 61 ocelot deaths between 1983 and 2004 were caused by vehicle collisions 

in Texas (FWS 2010). Since 2007, in Arizona and Northern Sonora, there have been four 

documented cases of ocelots being killed by vehicles or illegally killed, including: one ocelot 

struck close to Globe; one ocelot struck on Mexico Highway 2, between Imuris and Cananea, 

Sonora; and two ocelots illegally killed in the Sierra Azul (email from Sergio Avila, Sky Island 

Alliance, March 15, 2013). 

Planning and Conservation Efforts 

The ocelot is included on CITES Appendix I and is protected across most of its range (Caso et 

al. 2008). Part of the species range includes protected areas, including some capable of 

maintaining long-term viable populations (Caso et al. 2008). While loss and fragmentation of 

habitat adversely affect ocelot populations, there have been notable efforts to acquire, protect, 

and restore habitat, and decrease mortality of the species in Texas and northeastern Mexico (see 

FWS 2010 for a detailed account of planning and conservation efforts made for the ocelot in 

Texas and northeastern Mexico). 

Some planning efforts have also been made for the Sonora subspecies. For example, the 

recovery plan for ocelots is currently being updated and includes conservation planning efforts 

for ocelots in Arizona and Sonora. Among others, a specific delisting criterion includes the 

identification and protection of habitat linkages to facilitate a metapopulation in Sonora and 

Arizona. Additionally, Grigione et al. (2009) conducted a study to identify priority conservation 

areas for jaguars, ocelots, and jaguarundis in the U.S. – Mexico border region. For ocelots, it 

was determined that little was known in the western bioregion (Arizona-Sonora). One Cat 

Conservation Unit (CCU) of high priority was identified in the Sierra Madre Occidental (in 

Sonora) and two corridors (from the Sonora CCU to the U.S.) and one CCU (in the U.S.) were 

identified as needing further study. 

Few conservation implementation efforts have been made specifically for the Sonora subspecies; 

however, conservation efforts made for jaguars undoubtedly also contribute to ocelot 

conservation. For example, the Northern Jaguar Project purchased a total of 18,211 hectares 

(45,000 acres) to create the Northern Jaguar Reserve for the protection of jaguars in Sonora. 

Ocelots also occur there and will benefit from this protection. Rancho El Aribabi, a privately 

owned ranch in northern Sonora where ocelots occur, was recently recognized by the Mexican 

government as a reserve. Additionally, the Northern Jaguar Project implements a felid 

photograph project in Sonora where private landowners are paid for photos of live felids. 

Although primarily designed to support the conservation of jaguars, the project also benefits 
173

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

ocelots. Sky Island Alliance (2013) is also conducting felid surveys and landowner outreach in 

northern Sonora. During this effort, they documented the most recent ocelot occurrences in the 

extreme northern Sonora, including a female with a kitten. Lastly, it is possible that the proposd 

critical habitat for jaguar will afford some protection to ocelots occurring in the U.S., though the 

species respective habitat preferences differ. 

Environmental Baseline - Ocelot 

The environmental baseline includes past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private 

actions in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal actions in the action 

area that have undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and the impact of State and 

private actions that are contemporaneous with the consultation process. The environmental 

baseline defines the current status of the species and its habitat in the action area to provide a 

platform to assess the effects of the action now under consultation. 

Action Area

The action area is defined as the area within which effects to the listed species and its critical 

habitat (if any is designated) are likely to occur and is not limited to the actual footprint of the 

proposed action. The proposed action falls within the range of the Sonora subspecies as well as 

within the ASMU as defined in the draft revised Ocelot Recovery Plan (FWS 2010). Although 

ocelots have not been documented in the Santa Rita Mountains, it is believed that they may occur 

there. For the purposes of the ocelot analysis, we use the Forest Service Action Area definition 

(i.e., defined by hydrology). 

Terrain, Vegetation Communities, and Climate in the Action Area 

See the Action Area Section above for a description of terrain, vegetation communities, and 

climate in the action area. 

Status of the Ocelot in the Action Area 

Life History and Habitat

Life history of the ocelot is described above in the Status of the Species. Generally, life history 

elements are similar throughout their range, although some, such as diet and vegetation 

community use vary by region (see Status of the Species). As discussed in greater detail in the 

Status of the Species, no home range or habitat use studies have been conducted for the Sonora 

subspecies of ocelot in northwestern Mexico or Arizona, however ocelots in Sonora appear to be 

primarily associated with tropical or subtropical habitats, namely subtropical thornscrub, tropical 

deciduous forest and tropical thornscrub (López González et al. 2003); however, they are also 

associated with other vegetation types such as temperate oak woodland and pine-oak forest 

(López González et al. 2003) and Madrean evergreen woodland (Avila-Villegas and Jessica 

Lamberton-Moreno 2012). Based on limited records, in Arizona ocelots appear to be associated 

with Madrean evergreen woodland (Avila-Villegas and Jessica Lamberton-Moreno 2012) and 
174

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Madrean lower montane pine-oak forest and woodland email from Tim Snow, AGFD, March 13, 

2013). 

Potential ocelot habitat in Arizona is yet to be quantified, but could become increasingly 

important to the survival of the ocelot as threats (i.e., illegal killing, land conversion, etc.) 

continue in Sonora. Ocelots in Arizona and Sonora represent a distributional extreme and the 

important genetic/adaptive resources that can characterize peripheral populations (Lomolino and 

Channell 1995). Similar to the jaguar, conservation of ocelots in their northern-most portion of 

their range may be important to the long-term survival of ocelots 

Distribution, Abundance, and Population Trends

The Arizona/Sonora ocelot subspecies occurs in southern Arizona and northwestern Mexico 

(Sonora and northern Sinaloa) (FWS 2010). Breeding populations occur in the States of Sonora 

and northern Sinaloa (FWS 2010). As stated above in the “Status of the Species”, estimating 

population sizes of secretive nocturnal carnivores, especially species that inhabit dense 

vegetative cover, such as the ocelot, is difficult. In Sonora, López González et al. (2003) 

obtained 36 verified ocelot records, 21 of which were obtained after 1990, including 19 

individual male records, 6 females, and 11 of undetermined sex. A population of 2,025 + 675 

ocelots in Sonora was estimated by López González et al. (2003) based on the distribution of 

these records and the availability of potential habitat. Out of the 26 records, the northern-most 

record of a female was at 30°30’ latitude and only one record was of a kitten (located in the 

southern part of Sonora) (López González et al. 2003). In northern Sonora, a number of ocelots 

have recently been documented just south of the U.S. border in Sonora, Mexico. Specifically, 

with the use of camera traps, six live ocelots were documented between February 2007 and April 

2011 in the Sierra Azul, about 30 miles southeast of Nogales, including two males, one female, 

one kitten, and two of undetermined sex; three dead ocelots were documented in the same area 

during the same timeframe (Avila-Villegas and Jessica Lamberton-Moreno 2012). Additionally, 

one ocelot was documented in 2009 in the Sierra de Los Ajos, about 30 miles south of the U.S. 

border near Naco, Mexico (FWS 2010). 

No ocelots have been detected in the Santa Rita Mountains, site of the proposed action. 

However, based on habitat type (i.e., Madrean evergreen woodland) it is believed that ocelots 

may or could occur in these mountains (personal communication with Tim Snow, AGFD, March 

18, 2013, and Sergio Avila, SIA, March 18, 2013). If ocelots occur in the Santa Rita Mountains, 

they are likely part of a population occurring primarily to the south. As stated above, ocelots are 

known to occur in the Huachuca Mountains in Arizona and the Sierra Azul in Sonora; however 

they have also been documented in the Whetstone Mountains and Globe (i.e., to the east and 

northeast of the Santa Rita Mountains, respectively). In between the Santa Ritas and the Sierra 

Azul lie the Patagonia Mountains. Although no ocelots have been documented in the Patagonias, 

this range is connected to areas south of the border, does not have an impermeable border fence, 

and habitat there is similar to that found in the Sierra Azul. 

Threats 
175

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Threats to the Sonora subspecies of ocelot are similar to threats to the species throughout its 

range as described under “Status of the Species”. Recently documented cases of ocelots being 

killed by vehicles (Arizona and Sonora) and illegally killed (Sonora only) in the northwestern 

most portion of the ocelot range corroborate the hypothesis that roads/vehicles and illegal killing 

of ocelots are still among the primary threats to ocelot in this region. Other threats include 

habitat loss and fragmentation due to, among other things, urban expansion and roads. 

Connectivity among ocelot populations or colonization of new habitats is discouraged by the 

proliferation of highways. 

Other threats to ocelots in this region are international border issues such as 1) infrastructure 

along and near the U.S. - Mexico border, including pedestrian and vehicle barriers and towers 

and their associated roads and lighting; and 2) illegal and U.S. Border Patrol traffic (pedestrian 

and vehicle). Fences designed to prevent the passage of humans (i.e., pedestrian barriers) 

undoubtedly also prevent passage of ocelots. Other infrastructure (e.g., vehicle barriers, towers, 

roads, and lighting) and human activity may limit ocelot movement across the border, but it is 

uncertain if and how much this is affecting that movement. Connectivity to Mexico is likely 

essential for maintaining ocelots in Arizona (the northern portion of the ASMU). As included in 

the recovery criteria for this species, delisting the species will require that habitat linkages to 

facilitate an ASMU metapopulation are identified and conserved for the foreseeable future. 

Planning and Conservation Efforts

Significant planning and conservation efforts have been made for the ocelot in certain parts of its 

range, such as Texas. As described above in “Status of the Species”, some planning and 

conservation efforts have also been made for the Sonora subspecies. 

Past and Ongoing Federal Actions in the Action Area 

Although a number of Federal actions have occurred in the action area, none of these actions has 

undergone formal consultation for effects to ocelot; therefore, no incidental take has been 

anticipated for ocelots in the action area. 

Effects of the Proposed Action - Ocelot 

“Effects of the action” refer to the direct and indirect effects of an action on the species or critical 

habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated or interdependent with 

that action (50 CFR §402.02). Indirect effects occur later in time but are reasonably certain to 

occur. "Interrelated actions” are those that are part of a larger action and depend on the larger 

action for their justification. Interdependent actions are those that have no independent utility 

apart from the action under consideration (50 CFR §402.02). 

The proposed action may result in degradation of potential ocelot habitat and disturbance to 

ocelots, if they occur in the action area. Construction and operations of the mine, including the 

associated roads, will result in removal, destruction, and degradation of potential ocelot and 

ocelot prey habitat and may disturb ocelots, if they occur in the action area, causing changes in, 
176

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

among other things, their habitat use and movement patterns. Conservation measures included in 

the project description may help offset adverse effects to ocelots to some extent. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of Project Construction 

The BA defines the project area as all areas in which any ground disturbance would take place as 

a result of the proposed action, including the mine pit, waste rock facilities, tailings, access 

roads, utility corridors, and on-site facilities (i.e., the mine “footprint” or area within the security 

fence plus roads, corridors, and trails). The project area acreage, expected to result in direct 

impacts owing to project activities, is 5,401 acres, which includes areas within the security fence 

(4,228 acres), the primary access road (226 acres), the utility line corridor (889 acres), the 

Sycamore connector road (26 acres), decommissioned or new forest roads (59 acres), and the 

rerouted Arizona National Scenic Trail (19 acres) (see USFS 2013d, as cited in the Description 

of the Proposed Action section). Please note that the 5,401-acre value does not include 20 acres 

of decommissioned roads. 

According to our calculations using ArcMap, the footprint of the facilities contained within the 

security fence plus roads (primary and secondary access) will permanently remove 2,519 acres of 

Madrean evergreen woodland, 2,301 acres of semidesert grassland, and 581 acres of riparian 

vegetation (see USFS 2013d, as cited in the Description of the Proposed Action section). 

Madrean evergreen woodland is more likely to be used by ocelots than semidesert grassland; 

however, ocelots have been occasionally documented using grasslands in areas outside of 

Arizona. Therefore, it is possible that ocelots may use semidesert grassland and/or riparian 

vegetation, particularly when moving between patches of more suitable habitat. Although we do 

not know the home range size of ocelots in Arizona, considering ocelot home ranges in other 

parts of their distribution range from 2 to 38 km2 (494 to 9,390 acres), using only the area of 

Madrean evergreen woodland that will be removed by the project, an equivalent of about 0.3 to 

5.1 potential ocelot home ranges may be directly impacted (eliminated) by the project footprint 

assuming no overlap in home ranges. However, because ocelot home ranges overlap (Murray 

and Gardner 1997, Fernandez 2002, Dillon and Kelly 2008), the project footprint could impact 

additional ocelot home ranges. Removal of semidesert grassland may also impact ocelots, 

particularly their movement between patches of more suitable habitat. In addition to eliminating 

potential ocelot habitat (5,401 acres of combined madean evergreen woodland, semidesert 

grassland, and riparian vegetation), the project will also result in the direct removal of the same 

acreage of ocelot prey habitat, possibly leading to a reduced prey base for ocelots. 

Outside of the security fence, a perimeter barbed-wire fence will be constructed. The perimeter 

fence will encompass 6,990 acres of land (USFS 2013b); however, except where specific 

features such as the primary or secondary access roads are located, the land between the 

perimeter fence and the security fence will not be disturbed. Together, the perimeter fence plus 

roads will affect 3,479 acres (1,407 ha) of Madrean evergreen woodland and 4,071 acres (1,647 

ha) of semidesert grassland. Effects to riparian vegetation will be similar to the permanent 

effects (581 acres), as most of these impacts are within the security-fenced mine site itself. 

Given the influence of human and vehicular activity, noise, and lighting (see discussion below 

for information on effects of noise, lights, and traffic on ocelots) within the perimeter fence, we 
177

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

anticipate that ocelots, if they occur in the area, would likely avoid most or all areas within the 

perimeter fence. If this is the case, then the mine will impact (using only the area of Madrean 

evergreen woodland that will be affected over the long term) an equivalent of about 0.4 to 7 

potential ocelot home ranges, possibly more considering home range overlap and potential ocelot 

use of semidesert grassland. 

Because the project footprint completely bisects a north-south oriented swath of Madrean 

evergreen woodland (see Figure I-4), potential ocelot movement to and from the northern portion 

of the Madrean evergreen woodland swath from the main portion of Madrean evergreen 

woodland in the Santa Ritas (or vice-versa) may be impeded. If ocelots occurring in the main 

portion of Madrean evergreen woodland were completely cut-off from the northern portion, this 

would mean an additional ~5,000 acres of suitable potential ocelot habitat (all Madrean 

evergreen woodland) would become unavailable to ocelots, if they occur in the area. If ocelots 

currently occur to the north of the mine, after project construction, they may become isolated 

from ocelots to the south. It may be possible for ocelots to move around the mine; however, the 

semidesert grassland to the east and west of the mine does not appear to provide as much cover 

for ocelots as the Madrean evergreen woodland, therefore making it less likely that ocelots 

would use it. Additionally, because some areas to the east and west of the mine will be subjected 

to the effects of lighting, noise, and vibrations (see discussion below on effects of lighting, noise, 

and vibrations), it seems even more unlikely that ocelots, if they occur in the area, would move 

around the mine to reach the northern portion of the Madrean evergreen woodland swath. 

Habitat loss associated with the project may cause any ocelots that might occur in the area, to 

shift their home ranges to the south which could result in increased intra- and inter-specific 

competition. 

Construction activities associated with all aspects of the project may disturb ocelots, if they 

occur in the area, and cause them to flee and/or avoid the area. Construction of the primary 

access road, over half of which is in Madrean evergreen woodland, is more likely to result in 

disturbance to ocelots than construction of and upgrades to the utility maintenance road which 

crosses through semidesert grassland. Disturbance to ocelots can result in behavioral changes, 

increased energetic expenditures, and interference with habitat use, including use of movement 

corridors. These could lead to decreased dispersal opportunities; changes in home range size and 

location; increased inter- and intra-specific competition; increased difficulty meeting energetic 

needs; etc. Once project construction is complete, ocelots would be excluded from the area as it 

will be devoid of habitat, as described above. Ocelot avoidance of the project area could cause 

them to travel longer distances, possibly into or through less suitable habitat. Extra travel would 

require ocelots to expend additional energy and increase the potential for encounters with 

humans, vehicles, potential predators (i.e., cougars, jaguars), and other stresses. 

Disturbed ground associated with mine and road construction will be susceptible to colonization 

by invasive nonnative plants such as Lehmann lovegrass. Nonnative species may outcompete 

native species and the introduced grasses also carry fire better and burn hotter than the native 

species, which would degrade ocelot habitat. That said, the project proponent plans to monitor 

and control invasive nonnative plants throughout the project area. 
178

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Effects of Lighting, Noise, and Vibrations from Mining Operations 

In addition to the direct project footprint, ocelots that might occur within the vicinity of the 

project footprint may also be adversely affected by light, noise, and vibrations associated with 

the project. Although Rosemont has developed a light pollution mitigation plan, artificial 

illumination will increase light levels at night, which could impact ocelots, if they occur in the 

area, resulting in a wide variety of effects, including, but not limited to, changes in behavior, 

habitat use, and dispersal and movement patterns (Beir 1995, Longcore and Rich 2004). 

Artificial lighting will originate from mine-site illumination and also from vehicles in the project 

area and beyond. Horizontal light will extend to at least 12 miles beyond the project, in some 

areas, and sky glow from the project is expected to be comparable, but less than, sky glow from 

Ajo, Arizona (a town of about 3,300 people) (WestLand 2012). The light intensity will be 

highest at the mine and attenuate farther from the mine. Most areas within a 12-mile radius will 

be blocked from line of sight horizontal light emanating from the project area; however, ocelots 

are mobile animals that travel over hills and ridgetops, and therefore would likely see the 

horizontal lighting (mapped by WestLand 2012 and reproduced in Figure J-4 in this document) 

during regular movement activities or during dispersal. Additionally, sky glow will likely be 

visible to ocelots in the vicinity of the mine at all times at night. 

No data exist on the effects of artificial lighting on ocelots; however, in Peru, Emmons (1989) 

found that while ocelots were equally active during moonlit and dark nights they avoided open 

areas on moonlit nights (they likewise avoided open areas by day). They concluded that ocelots 

therefore generally seemed to shift their foraging to denser cover in bright light conditions. They 

also found that spiny rats, a major prey of ocelots, are equally active during moonlit and dark 

conditions; however they also changed their behavior so as to be hidden from view of trails on 

bright nights. They suggest that ocelots seem more likely to have their hunting impeded than 

enhanced by bright light conditions, which may hinder their ability to approach its prey unseen. 

In Southern California, radio-collared mountain lions usually avoid habitat corridors that contain 

artificial lights (Beier 1995). During overnight monitoring, mountain lions made consistent 

movements in the direction of the darkest horizon. Dispersers especially avoided night-lights in 

conjunction with open terrain (Beier 1995). Installation of light in cattle corrals is a well-known 

technique to reduce jaguar predation of cattle (because jaguars avoid lighted areas). Other 

studies have shown that moonlight greatly influences the activity levels of nocturnal rodents (i.e., 

ocelot prey) such that rodent activity may decrease and/or shift from open areas to cover as light 

level of moonlight increases (Grigione and Mrykalo 2004). 

Although the effects of artificial lighting on ocelots is not known, given that they use denser 

cover during bright moon light conditions, we anticipate that they will seek areas of denser 

vegetation wherever horizontal light enters habitat. It is difficult to understand how sky glow 

may be perceived by ocelots, but because it is not shining down from above, it may not have the 

same effect as bright moon conditions. Never-the-less, sky glow may increase the ambient 

illumination in the area, which could potentially affect ocelots to some degree. 

Because areas to the east, southeast, west, and northwest of the project area appear (on Google 

Earth) less densely vegetated than areas within the perimeter fence, and because those areas will 
179

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

be affected by light, noise, and vibrations, ocelots may avoid or reduce their movement past or 

around the mine altogether. This could mean that potential east-west ocelot movement 

(dispersal) between the Santa Rita and Whetstone mountains could be restricted. If they do 

move around, as mentioned above, extra travel would require ocelots to expend additional 

energy and increase the potential for encounters with humans, vehicles, potential predators (i.e., 

cougars, jaguars), and other stresses. 

Similarly, noise and vibrations from construction of the mine or blasting could disturb ocelots, if 

they occur in the area, possibly causing, among other things, changes in breeding behaviors, 

home ranges size and location, and habitat use, activity, and foraging patterns; increased stress 

response; and possibly damaged hearing if the noise is loud enough (NoiseQuest 2013; Pater et 

al. 2009). As with lighting, the magnitude of impacts from vibration and light are uncertain, but 

these impacts are expected to decrease as the distance from the mine increases. In the same or 

similar manner that lighting, noise, and vibrations affect ocelots, these anthropogenic 

disturbances may also adversely affect ocelot prey, leading to a reduced prey base for ocelots. 

Indirect Effects of Roads 

The primary access road, a new 2-lane paved road, will be constructed to provide access between 

SR83 and the mine. The primary access road will leave SR 83 along a straight section of the 

highway, just to the east of the northern portion of the perimeter fence. The majority of the 

primary access road skirts the northeastern portion of the perimeter fence. In addition to the 

primary access road, Rosemont and the Coronado National Forest will build a new access road 

into Sycamore Canyon. This road will also occur along the northern portion of the perimeter 

fence, but north of the fence. The primary access road from SR 83 to the perimeter fence will be 

open to the public at all times. During mine operations, the primary access road between the 

perimeter fence and the mine will be closed to the public; however, after mine closure, it will be 

open to public use. The Sycamore connector road will also be open to the public at all times. 

Because these roads cut across Madrean evergreen woodland and heavy vehicular use of the 

primary access road (which will vary from passenger vehicles to haul trucks and heavy 

equipment) is anticipated day and night (traffic along the new access road into Sycamore Canyon 

is anticipated to be limited), vehicle collisions with ocelots could occur. However, given that 

ocelots in Arizona are scarce and only one ocelot is known to have been struck by a vehicle in 

Arizona, it seems unlikely that there is great risk of vehicles striking ocelots on the primary 

access road. Vehicles will likely collide with potential ocelot prey; however, we do not 

anticipate it will have a significant impact on the ocelot prey base. 

The Primary Access and Sycamore Connector roads will fragment suitable habitat between the 

mine footprint and areas to the north (see Figure 1 of the June 2012 BA and Figures I-1, I-2, and 

J-3 in this document). However, as stated above, we anticipate ocelots, if they occur in the area, 

would avoid most or all areas within the perimeter fence given the human influence between the 

project footprint and perimeter fence. The Sycamore connector road will also fragment suitable 

habitat outside of the perimeter fence, and provide public access to areas north of the mine. 

Improved accessibility in this area will likely result in increased public use in suitable ocelot 

habitat which may lead to somewhat increased: (1) disturbance to ocelots in the area, (2) risk of 
180

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

collision with ocelots, (3) habitat degradation, (4) risk of human-caused fire, (5) risk of illegal 

killing of ocelots, and (6) human presence in remote areas (i.e., roads may facilitate increased 

off-road vehicle and pedestrian traffic in the area). 

The utility maintenance road (previously called the secondary access road), located within the 

utility corridor, crosses through semidesert grassland to the northwest of the mine. Vehicle 

traffic is expected to be much lighter on this road in comparison to that on the primary access 

road. Therefore, we anticipate the chance of vehicles colliding with ocelots is very low. The 

road will be closed to the public during mine construction and operation; however, after the mine 

is closed, portions of the improved road may be reopened to the public. The road will have been 

made passable to low-clearance, 2-wheel drive vehicles as part of the proposed action. This 

could result in increased public access to ocelot habitat which could lead to an increase in the six 

aforementioned threats. 

Disturbed ground will be susceptible to colonization by invasive nonnative plants such as 

buffelgrass and Lehmann lovegrass. Nonnative species may outcompete native species and the 

introduced grasses also carry fire better and burn hotter than the native species, which would 

degrade potential ocelot habitat. The invasive species monitoring and control measures (see 

Appendix B) will minimize this potential effect on NFS lands, but private and ASLD lands may 

be subject to lesser requirements. 

As a result of the mine, increased traffic is anticipated on SR83 (likely primarily on the part of 

the road that heads from the mine to the north, located within semidesert grassland) and possibly 

on Box Canyon Road (part of which crosses through Madrean evergreen woodland) which may 

lead to an increased risk of ocelots being struck by vehicles. However, as stated above, this risk 

is likely fairly low. Increased vehicular traffic on these roads will likely lead to increased 

collisions with ocelot prey; however, we do not anticipate this will have a significant impact on 

the ocelot prey base. 

Effects of Conservation Measures 

The conservation measures that are part of the proposed action act to some extent to offset some 

adverse effects to ocelots. For example, purchase of land parcels, particularly Sonoita Creek 

Ranch (1,200 acre parcel) which contains some Madrean evergreen woodland and riparian 

habitat and provides habitat connectivity between the Patagonia and Santa Rita Mountains, may 

benefit ocelots. Additionally, the project proponent will provide $50,000 to an entity approved 

by the Coronado National Forest to support camera studies for predators including jaguar and 

ocelot. The money will be provided for additional monitoring efforts between the Santa Rita and 

the Whetstone Mountains and along the Santa Rita Mountains. In addition to increasing 

knowledge regarding the movement of wildlife in the area, information collected during this 

investigation may identify a suitable wildlife crossing structure location that could be 

constructed. That said, $50,000 is likely only enough funding to conduct carnivore monitoring 

in a limited geographic area for about six months which is generally not a sufficient amount of 

time to collect quality data on cryptic carnivore movement. 
181

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Effects to Recovery of the Ocelot in the ASMU with the Project 

As stated in the “Status of the Species” delisting criteria for the ASMU are 1) the ASMU 

population is estimated through reliable scientific monitoring to be above 2,000 animals for 10 

years; 2) significant threats to this population have been identified and addressed; and 3) habitat 

linkages to facilitate an ASMU metapopulation have been identified and are conserved for the 

foreseeable future. Although the northern part of the ASMU, where the proposed action is 

located, is likely important to the recovery of the ocelot in the ASMU, we do not anticipate that 

the proposed action will preclude recovery of the ASMU. The proposed action may directly and 

indirectly impact sufficient habitat to support a handful of ocelot home ranges and may also 

reduce connectivity with areas to the north and east. That said, because the project will affect a 

relatively small area of the overall ASMU, it is likely that the ASMU population goal of 2,000 

ocelots could still be reached even with the impacts from the mine, particularly given that most 

of the ASMU occurs in Sonora. Because habitat linkages to facilitate an ASMU metapopulation 

have not been identified, the extent to which this project may impact those habitat linkages is not 

known. 

Cumulative Effects - Ocelot

Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, local, or private actions that are reasonably 

certain to occur in the action area considered in this biological opinion. Future Federal actions 

that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require 

separate consultation under section 7 of the Act. 

Many lands within the action area are managed by Federal agencies; thus, many activities that 

could potentially affect ocelots are Federal activities that are subject to section 7 consultation. 

The effects of these Federal activities are not considered cumulative effects. However, a portion 

of the action area also occurs on private lands. Residential and commercial development, road 

construction, farming, livestock grazing, mining, off-highway vehicle use, and other activities 

occur on these lands and are expected to continue into the foreseeable future. These actions, the 

effects of which are considered cumulative, may result in fragmentation, loss, or degradation of 

ocelot habitat and disturbance to ocelots. Although not documented recently in the U.S., illegal 

hunting of ocelots adversely affects ocelots. Illegal activities associated with cross-border 

smuggling and illegal immigration (e.g., human traffic, deposition of trash, creation of trails and 

routes, and increased fire risk from human traffic) also occur in the action area. These activities 

can also degrade ocelot habitat and disturb ocelots. 

Conclusion - Ocelot

After reviewing the current status of the ocelot, the environmental baseline for the action area, 

the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is our biological opinion that the 

project, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the ocelot. Critical 

habitat has not been designated for this species; thus no critical habitat will be affected by the 

proposed action. We base our conclusion on the following: 
182

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

1. Although we anticipate the proposed action will result in the loss of potential ocelot 

habitat, the loss is relatively small in the context of the range of the ASMU of ocelot. 

Thus, the project is not expected to significantly affect the distribution, numbers, and 

reproduction of ocelots in the ASMU. 

2. Although connectivity to ocelot habitat to the north and east may be reduced, 

connectivity of ocelot habitat south of the mine to Mexico will remain intact. Thus, the 

project is not expected to significantly affect the distribution, numbers, and reproduction 

of ocelots in the ASMU. 

3. Conservation measures in the proposed action are anticipated to offset adverse effects of 

the proposed action to ocelots to some extent. 

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT- OCELOT

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act, prohibit take of 

endangered or threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined as to 

harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in 

any such conduct. “Harm” is further defined to include significant habitat modification or 

degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral 

patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. “Harass” is defined in the regulations as ``an 

intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by 

annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which 

include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). Incidental take is 

defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out an otherwise lawful 

activity. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and 

not intended as part of the proposed action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the 

Act provided such taking is in compliance with this Incidental Take Statement. 

Amount or Extent of Take Anticipated - Ocelot

Occupancy is difficult to document for rare and secretive animals. While there are no 

documented occurrences of ocelots in the Santa Rita Mountains, we conclude that, based on the 

consistent and increasing occurrence of ocelots in adjacent areas and the presence of appropriate 

habitat and habitat connectivity, ocelots are likely to occur in the project area. However, we do 

not anticipate the proposed action will result in incidental take of ocelots because, although we 

consider the action area likely to be occupied by ocelots, we do not believe it meets the standards 

relating to documented occupancy as defined under the Arizona Cattle Growers' Association v.

th U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decision in 2001 by the 9 Circuit Appellate Court (273 F.3d 

1229). If, however, ocelots are definitively documented in the action area in the future, 

reinitiation of consultation would be prudent to reexamine incidental take. 

Status of the Species - Pima Pineapple Cactus 

The Pima Pineapple cactus was listed as an endangered species without critical habitat on 

September 23, 1993 (58 FR 49875). Factors that contributed to the listing include habitat loss 
183

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

and degradation, habitat modification and fragmentation, limited geographical distribution and 

species rareness, illegal collection, and difficulties in protecting areas large enough to maintain 

functioning populations. In 2005, a 5-year review was initiated for the Pima Pineapple cactus 

(70 FR 5460). This review was completed in 2007 and recommended no change to the cactus’s 

classification as an endangered species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007). 

Recent investigations of taxonomy and geographical distribution focused in part on assessing the 

validity of the taxon (see Baker 2004, Baker 2005, and Schmalzel et al. 2004). Although there is 

evidence for a general pattern of clinal variation across the range of the species (Schmalzel et al. 

2004), this does not preclude the recognition of taxonomic varieties within C. sheeri (= C. 

robustispina). Baker (2005) found that there are distinct geographical gaps between the 

distribution of this subspecies and the other subspecies, which occur in eastern Arizona, New 

Mexico, and Texas, and that the subspecies are morphologically coherent within their respective 

taxa (Baker 2004). His geographical and morphological work supports the idea that the subspecific groups within C. robustispina are indeed discrete, and merit separate taxonomic status 

as subspecies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007). 

We have determined that Pima Pineapple cactus that are too isolated from each other may not be 

effectively pollinated. For example, the major pollinator of Pima Pineapple cactus is thought to 

be Diadasia rinconis, a ground-nesting, solitary, native bee. McDonald (2005) found that Pima 

Pineapple cactus plants need to be within approximately 600 m (1,969 ft) of each other in order 

to facilitate effective pollination. Based on this information and other information related to 

similar cacti and pollinators, we have determined that Pima Pineapple cactus plants that are 

located at distances greater than 900 meters from one another become isolated with regard to 

meeting their life history requirements. The species is an obligate outcrosser (not selfpollinating), so it is important for plants to be within a certain distance to exchange pollen with 

each other. Also, the study found that pollination was more effective when other species of 

native cacti are near areas that support Pima Pineapple cactus. The native bees pollinate a 

variety of cacti species and the sole presence of Pima Pineapple cactus may not be enough to 

attract pollinators. 

The Pima Pineapple cactus occurs south of Tucson, in Pima and Santa Cruz counties, Arizona, as 

well as in adjacent northern Sonora, Mexico. In Arizona, it is distributed at very low densities 

throughout both the Altar and Santa Cruz valleys, and in low-lying areas connecting the two 

valleys. This cactus generally grows on slopes of less than 10 percent and along the tops (upland 

areas) of alluvial bajadas. The plant is found at elevations between 2,360 feet (ft) and 4,700 ft 

(Phillips et al. 1981, Benson 1982, Ecosphere Environmental Services Inc. 1992), in vegetation 

characterized as either or a combination of Arizona upland of the Sonoran desertscrub 

community and semi-desert grasslands (Brown 1982, Johnson 2004). Paredes-Aguilar et al. 

(2000) reports the subspecies from oak woodlands in Sonora. Several attempts have been made 

to delineate habitat within the range of Pima Pineapple cactus (McPherson 2002, RECON 

Environmental Inc. 2006, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service unpublished analysis) with limited 

success. As such, we are still unable to determine exact ecological characters to help us predict 

locations of Pima Pineapple cactus or precisely delineate Pima Pineapple cactus habitat (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2007), except perhaps in localized areas (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2005). 
184

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

As a consequence of its general habitat requirements, considerable habitat for this species 

appears to exist in Pima and Santa Cruz counties, much of which is unoccupied. Pima Pineapple 

cactus occurs at low densities, widely scattered, sometimes in clumps, across the valley bottoms 

and bajadas. The species can be difficult to detect, especially in dense grass cover. For this 

reason, systematic surveys are expensive and have not been conducted extensively throughout 

the range of the Pima Pineapple cactus. As a result, location information has been gathered 

opportunistically, either through small systematic surveys, usually associated with specific 

development projects, or larger surveys that are typically only conducted in areas that seem 

highly suited for the species. Furthermore, our knowledge of the distribution and status of this 

species is gathered primarily through the section 7 process; and we only see projects that require 

a Federal permit or have Federal funding. There are many projects that occur within the range of 

Pima Pineapple cactus that do not undergo section 7 consultation, and we have no information 

regarding the status or loss of plants or habitat associated with those projects. For these reasons, 

it is difficult to address abundance and population trends for this species. 

The AGFD maintains the Heritage Data Management System (HDMS), a database identifying 

elements of concern in Arizona and consolidating information about their distribution and status 

throughout the state. This database has 5,553 Pima Pineapple cactus records, 5,449 Pima 

Pineapple cactus of which have coordinates. Some of the records are quite old, and we have not 

confirmed whether the plants are still alive. We also cannot determine which plants may be the 

result of multiple surveys in a given area. Of the known individuals (5,553), approximately 

1,340 Pima Pineapple cactus plants are documented in the database as extirpated as of 2003. 

There have been additional losses since 2003, but that information is still being compiled in the 

database. The database is dynamic, based on periodic entry of new information, as time and 

staffing allows. As such, the numbers used from one biological opinion to the next may vary and 

should be viewed as a snapshot in time at any given moment. We have not tracked loss of 

habitat because a limited number of biological assessments actually quantify habitat for Pima 

Pineapple cactus. 

We do know the number and fate of Pima Pineapple cactus that have been detected during 

surveys for projects that have undergone section 7 consultation. Through 2010, section 7 

consultations on development projects (e.g., residential and commercial development, mining, 

infrastructure improvement) considered 2,680 Pima Pineapple cactus plants found on 

approximately 15,192 acres within the range of the Pima Pineapple cactus. Of the total number 

of plants, 1,985 Pima Pineapple cactus (74 percent) were destroyed, removed, or transplanted as 

a result of development, mining, and infrastructure projects. In terms of Pima Pineapple cactus 

habitat, some of the 15,192 acres likely did not provide Pima Pineapple cactus habitat, but that 

amount is difficult to quantify because Pima Pineapple cactus habitat was not consistently 

delineated in every consultation. Of the 15,192 acres, however, we are aware that 14,545 acres 

(96 percent) have been either permanently or temporarily impacted. Some of these acres may 

still provide natural open space, but we have not been informed of any measures (e.g., 

conservation easements) that have been completed to ensure these areas will remain open. 

Through section 7 consultation on non-development-related projects (e.g., fire management 

plans, grazing, buffelgrass control), we are aware of an additional 781 plants within an unknown 
185

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

number of acres; we do not know the number of acres because these types of projects are often 

surveyed for Pima Pineapple cactus inconsistently, if at all. Across the entire Pima Pineapple 

cactus range, it is difficult to quantify the total number of Pima Pineapple cactus lost and the rate 

and amount of habitat loss for three reasons: 1) we review only a small portion of projects within 

the range of Pima Pineapple cactus (only those that have Federal involvement and are subject to 

section 7 consultation), 2) development that takes place without any jurisdictional oversight is 

not tracked within Pima and Santa Cruz counties, and 3) many areas within the range of the Pima 

Pineapple cactus have not been surveyed; therefore, we do not know how many plants exist or 

how much habitat is presently available. 

Some additional information related to the survival of Pima Pineapple cactus comes from six 

demographic plots that were established in 2002 in the Altar Valley. The results from the first 

year (2002-2003) indicate that the populations were stable; out of a total of over 300 Pima 

Pineapple cactus measured, only 10 died, and two Pima Pineapple cactus seedlings were found 

(Routson et al. 2004). The plots were not monitored in 2004, but were visited again starting in 

May 2005. In the two years between September 2003 and September 2005, 35 individuals, or 

13.4 percent, of the original population had died and no new seedlings were found (Baker 2006). 

Baker (2006) suggests that recruitment likely occurs in punctuated events in response to quality 

and timing of precipitation, and possibly temperature, but there is little evidence until such 

events occur. He goes on to say that further observations need to be made to determine the rate 

at which the population is declining, because, based on an overall rate of die-off of 13.4 percent 

every two years, few individuals will be alive at this site after 15 years. As this monitoring 

program continues, critical questions regarding the life cycle of this species will be answered. 

Threats to Pima Pineapple cactus continue to include habitat loss and fragmentation, competition 

with non-native species, and inadequate regulatory mechanisms to protect this species. We 

believe residential and commercial development, and its infrastructure, is by far the greatest 

threat to Pima Pineapple cactus and its habitat. However, we have only a limited ability to track 

the cumulative amount of development within the range of Pima Pineapple cactus. What is 

known with certainty is that development pressure continues in Pima and Santa Cruz counties. 

Invasive grass species may be a threat to the habitat of Pima Pineapple cactus. Habitat in the 

southern portion of the Altar Valley is now dominated by Lehmann lovegrass (Eragrostis 

lehmanniana). According to Gori and Enquist (2003), Boer lovegrass (Eragrostis chloromelas) 

and Lehmann lovegrass are now common and dominant on 1,470,000 acres in southeastern 

Arizona. They believe that these two grass species will continue to invade native grasslands to 

the north and east, as well as south into Mexico. These grasses have a completely different fire 

regime than the native grasses, tending to form dense stands that promote higher intensity fires 

more frequently. Disturbance (like fire) tends to promote the spread of these non-natives (Ruyle 

et al. 1988, Anable et al. 1992). Roller and Halvorson (1997) hypothesized that fire-induced 

mortality of Pima Pineapple cactus increases with Lehmann lovegrass density. Buffelgrass 

(Pennisetum ciliare) has become locally dominant in vacant areas in the City of Tucson and 

along roadsides, notably in the rights-of-way along Interstate 10 and State Route 86. Some 

portions of Pima Pineapple cactus habitat along these major roadways are already being 
186

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

converted to dense stands of buffelgrass, which can lead to recurring grassland fires and the 

destruction of native desert vegetation (Buffelgrass Working Group 2007). 

The effects of climate change (i.e., decreased precipitation and water resources) are a threat to 

the long-term survival and distribution of native plant species, including the Pima Pineapple 

cactus. For example, temperatures rose in the twentieth century and warming is predicted to 

continue over the twenty-first century. Although climate models are less certain about predicted 

trends in precipitation, the southwestern United States is expected to become warmer and drier. 

In addition, precipitation is expected to decrease in the southwestern United States, and many 

semi-arid regions will suffer a decrease in water resources from climate change as a result of less 

annual mean precipitation and reduced length of snow season and snow depth. Approximately 

half of the precipitation within the range of the Pima Pineapple cactus typically falls in the 

summer months; however, the impacts of climate change on summer precipitation are not well 

understood. Drought conditions in the southwestern United States have increased over time and 

may have contributed to loss of Pima Pineapple cactus populations through heat stress, drought 

stress, and related insect attack, as well as a reduction in germination and seedling success since 

the species was originally listed in 1993, and possibly historically. Climate change trends are 

likely to continue, and the impacts on species will likely be complicated by interactions with 

other factors (e.g., interactions with non-native species and other habitat-disturbing activities). 

The Arizona Native Plant Law can delay vegetation clearing on private property for the salvage 

of specific plant species within a 30-day period. Although the Arizona Native Plant Law 

prohibits the taking of this species on State and private lands without a permit for educational or 

research purposes, it does not provide for protection of plants in situ through restrictions on 

development activities. Even if Pima Pineapple cactus are salvaged from a site, transplanted 

individuals only contribute to a population if they survive and are close enough (within 900 m 

[(2,970 ft]) to other Pima Pineapple cactus to be part of a breeding population from the 

perspective of pollinator travel distances and the likelihood of effective pollination. 

Transplanted Pima Pineapple cactus have variable survival rates, with moderate to low levels of 

survival documented. Past efforts to transplant individual Pima Pineapple cactus to other 

locations have had limited success. For example, on two separate projects in Green Valley, the 

mortality rate for transplanted Pima Pineapple cactus after two years was 24 percent and 66 

percent, respectively (SWCA, Inc. 2001, WestLand 2004). One project southwest of Corona de 

Tucson involved transplanting Pima Pineapple cactus into areas containing in situ plants. Over 

the course of three years, 48 percent of the transplanted individuals and 24 percent of the in situ

individuals died (WestLand 2008). There is also the unquantifiable loss of the existing Pima 

Pineapple cactus seed bank associated with the loss of suitable habitat. Furthermore, once 

individuals are transplanted from a site, Pima Pineapple cactus is considered to be extirpated 

from that site, as those individuals functioning in that habitat are moved elsewhere. 

Pima County regulates the loss of native plant material associated with ground-disturbing 

activities through their Native Plant Protection Ordinance (NPPO) (Pima County 1998). The 

NPPO requires inventory of the site and protection and mitigation of certain plant species slated 

for destruction by the following method: the designation of a minimum of 30 percent of on-site, 

permanently protected open space with preservation in place or transplanting of certain native 
187

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

plant species from the site. There are various tables that determine the mitigation ratio for 

different native plant species (e.g. saguaros, ironwood trees, Pima Pineapple cactus) with the 

result that mitigation may occur at a 1:1 or 2:1 replacement ratio. Mitigation requirements are 

met through the development of preservation plans. The inadvertent consequence of this 

ordinance is that it has created a “market” for Pima Pineapple cactus. Any developer who cannot 

avoid this species or move it to another protected area must replace it. Most local nurseries do 

not grow Pima Pineapple cactus (and cannot grow them legally unless seed was collected before 

the listing). As a result, environmental consultants are collecting Pima Pineapple cactus seed 

from existing sites (which can be done with a permit from the Arizona Department of 

Agriculture and the permission of the private landowner), germinating seed, and placing Pima 

Pineapple cactus plants grown from seed back on these sites. There have been no long-term 

studies of transplant projects, thus the conservation benefit of these actions is unknown. 

Moreover, growing and planting Pima Pineapple cactus does not address the loss of Pima 

Pineapple cactus habitat that necessitated the action of transplanting cacti in the first place. 

Other specific threats that have been previously documented (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1993), such as overgrazing, illegal collection, prescribed fire, and mining, have not yet been 

analyzed to determine the extent of effects to this species. However, partial information exists. 

Overgrazing by livestock, illegal collection, and fire-related interactions involving exotic 

Lehmann lovegrass and buffelgrass may negatively affect Pima Pineapple cactus populations. 

Mining has resulted in the loss of hundreds, if not thousands, of acres of potential habitat 

throughout the range of the plant.

The protection of Pima Pineapple cactus habitat and individuals is complicated by the varying 

land ownership within the range of this species in Arizona. An estimated 10 percent of the 

potential habitat for Pima Pineapple cactus is held in Federal ownership. The remaining 90 

percent is on Tribal, State, and private lands. Most of the federally-owned land is either at the 

edge of the plant’s range or in scattered parcels. The largest contiguous parcel of federallyowned habitat is the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, located at the southwestern edge of 

the plant’s range at higher elevations and with lower plant densities. No significant populations 

of Pima Pineapple cactus are known from Sonora or elsewhere in Mexico (Baker 2005). 

There have been some notable conservation developments for this species. As of 2010, there are 

two conservation banks for Pima Pineapple cactus, one on a private ranch in the Altar Valley 

(Palo Alto Ranch Conservation Bank) and another owned by Pima County that includes areas in 

both the Altar Valley and south of Green Valley. In the Palo Alto Ranch Conservation Bank, 

131.6 acres have been conserved to date. In Pima County’s Bank, a total of 530 acres are under 

a conservation easement at this time (the County offsets its own projects within this bank). 

Additionally, three large blocks of land totaling another 1,078 acres have been set aside or are 

under conservation easements through previous section 7 consultations (see consultations 02-21-

99-F-273, 02-21-01-F-101, and 02-21-03-F-0406). While not formal conservation banks, these 

areas, currently totaling 1,739.6 acres, are set aside and managed specifically for Pima Pineapple 

cactus as large blocks of land, and likely contribute to recovery of the taxon for this reason; 

therefore, we consider these acres conserved. Another 647 acres of land have been set aside as 

natural open space within the developments reviewed through section 7 consultation between 
188

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

1995 and 2010. However, these are often small areas within residential backyards (not in a 

common area) that are difficult to manage and usually isolated within the larger development, 

and often include areas that do not provide Pima Pineapple cactus habitat (e.g., washes). Some 

conservation may occur onsite because of these open space designations, but long-term data on 

conservation within developed areas are lacking; the value of these areas to Pima Pineapple 

cactus recovery over the long-term is likely not great. 

In summary, Pima Pineapple cactus conservation efforts are currently hampered by a lack of 

information on the species. Specifically, we have not been able to determine exact ecological 

characters to help us predict locations of Pima Pineapple cactus or precisely delineate its habitat, 

and considerable area within the Pima Pineapple cactus range has not been surveyed. Further, 

there are still significant gaps in our knowledge of the life history of Pima Pineapple cactus; for 

instance, we have yet to observe a good year for seed germination. From researcher observations 

and motion sensing cameras, we have learned that ants, Harris’ antelope squirrels, and 

jackrabbits act as seed dispersal agents. Demographic plots have been only recently established, 

and information is just now beginning to be reported with regard to describing population 

dynamics for Pima Pineapple cactus in the Altar Valley. 

Development and associated loss of habitat remain important and continuing threats to this 

taxon. However, the expanding threat of non-native grasses and resulting altered fire regimes are 

a serious concern for the long-term viability of the species, as is ongoing drought. The full 

impact of drought and climate change on Pima Pineapple cactus has yet to be studied, but it is 

likely that, if recruitment occurs in punctuated events based on precipitation and temperature 

(Baker 2006), Pima Pineapple cactus will be negatively affected by these forces. Already we 

have seen a nearly 25% loss of individuals across six study sites in the Altar Valley between 

2010 and 2011; these deaths were attributed largely to drought and associated predation by 

native insects and rodents (Baker 2011). Conservation efforts that focus on habitat acquisition 

and protection, like those proposed by Pima County and the City of Tucson, are important steps 

in securing the long-term viability of this taxon. Regulatory mechanisms, such as the native 

plant protection ordinances, provide conservation direction for Pima Pineapple cactus habitat 

protection within subdivisions, and may serve to reduce Pima Pineapple cactus habitat 

fragmentation within areas of projected urban growth. 

Environmental Baseline - Pima Pineapple Cactus 

The environmental baseline includes past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private 

actions in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal actions in the action 

area that have undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and the impact of State and 

private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation process. The environmental 

baseline defines the current status of the species and its habitat in the action area to provide a 

platform to assess the effects of the action now under consultation. 
189

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Description of the Action Area 

For the Rosemont Mine project, we define the action area for Pima Pineapple cactus as the area 

that will be affected for the utility corridor (TEP line and the water pipeline). Pima Pineapple 

cactus are not known or expected to occur within the footprint of the mine and associated 

structures and facilities occurring at higher elevation within the Santa Rita Mountains. 

Therefore, the action area for Pima Pineapple cactus includes only the lower elevation portions 

of the proposed utility corridor up to 4,000 feet elevation (see Figures PPC-1 and PPC-2). 

Within the action area, approximately 33.2 acres of anticipated disturbance will occur within 

Pima Pineapple cactus habitat along the proposed utility corridor, in addition to any disturbance 

that may occur on the Helvetia Ranch North conservation lands associated with the development 

of water features as a conservation measure for other species covered under this BO such as the 

Chiricahua leopard frog, jaguar, or ocelot (see Conservation Measures D, G, H, and I of the 

Second Supplemental BA). 

The development and identification of alternative routes for the transmission line was based on 

electrical system requirements and an environmental and public planning process conducted by 

TEP from the summer of 2008 through the spring of 2010. Environmental studies included a 

review of land use issues, as well as studies of visual, biological, and cultural resources. 

Consideration was given to each route’s compatibility with established criteria for a Certificate 

of Environmental Compatibility (CEC) and consideration in the final route selection process by 

the Arizona Power Plant and Line Siting Committee and the Arizona Corporation Commission 

(ACC). 
190

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Figure PPC-1: Location of the Utility Corridor and Pima pineapple cacti for the Rosemont Mine project. 
191

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Figure PPC-2: Location of the far-western portion of the Utility Corridor and Pima pineapple cacti for the Rosemont Mine 

project.
192

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Power would be provided from a link attached to existing transmission lines on the South 

Substation loop. All of the transmission lines alternatives include aboveground 138-kilovolt 

transmission lines and an associated 14-foot-wide unpaved maintenance road. This set of routing 

alternatives recommended to be carried forward will be presented to the Arizona Corporation 

Commission Line Siting Committee. TEP identified a preferred route and four alternatives for 

consideration; however, only the preferred route is considered this BO. The TEP preferred route 

runs west of the Santa Rita Mountains ridgeline. The preferred route generally parallels the 

existing South Santa Rita Road before entering private property held by Rosemont (see Figure 

PPC-1). The alignment then enters the Rosemont claim block and crosses the ridgeline at Lopez 

Pass. The ACC has selected the preferred route and a CEC was issued on June 12, 2012. 

With regard to the proposed water pipeline, the proposed Rosemont Mine project will use 

approximately 5,000 acre-feet per year of fresh water, for a total use over the mine life of 

approximately 100,000 acre-feet. The water will be pumped from four to six wells located on 

land owned or leased by Rosemont near the community of Sahuarita in the Santa Cruz Valley at 

a maximum rate of 5,000 gallons per minute (total pumpage), and the pipeline will require 

booster stations to maintain water flow in the line. The water pipeline alignment will follow the 

TEP Preferred Alternative Transmission Line (see Figures I-1, PPC-1, and J-3). 

The pipeline will be constructed with a minimum soil cover of 36 inches within ASLD 

easements and up to 24 inches on Rosemont’s property, where available and practical, depending 

on slope, topography, and the availability of material. At wash crossings, the pipeline will be 

constructed below the calculated scour depth of the wash, and grade control structures will be 

provided at the largest washes to provide additional protection. Construction of the pipeline will 

include an unpaved permanent maintenance road and up to five reservoirs and pump stations. 

The reservoirs and pump stations will be built outside potential jurisdictional WUS. 

The action area occurs is northwest of the Santa Rita Mountains extending to the Town of 

Sahuarita. Topography consists of sloping terrain bisected by washes, with an estimated 

elevation range from approximately 2,750 to 4,000 feet. The biotic communities present are the 

Arizona Upland Subdivision of the Sonoran Desert and Semi-desert Grassland (Brown 1994). 

Typical vegetation within the project area includes creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), velvet 

mesquite (Prosopis velutina), catclaw acacia (Acacia greggii), barrel cactus (Ferocactus 

wislizenii), and saguaro (Carnegiea gigantea). 

Land uses within the action area include the residential areas of the Town of Sahuarita, mining 

activities in the northwest corner of the Santa Rita Mountains, and livestock grazing lands. 

Much of the action area is included within the Santa Rita Experimental Range. This area of 

approximately 50,000 acres consists primarily of State Trust lands, and is controlled by the 

University of Arizona and used to conduct rangeland management research and monitoring. 
193

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Status of the Species within the Action Area 

Recent Surveys 

In 2008, species-specific surveys for Pima Pineapple cactus were conducted along a preliminary 

water pipeline corridor route (WestLand 2009a), which has since been dropped because it was 

decided that the water pipeline alignment should follow the TEP power line and utility 

maintenance road corridor. Hence, in 2009, a new preferred corridor route was selected, and 

additional surveys were conducted (WestLand 2009b, 2010b) (Figure PPC-1). The western 

portion of the route, near the Town of Sahuarita, was changed in September 2013 (Figure PPC-2) 

The preferred 2009 corridor route extends from just east of the town of Sahuarita to the east side 

of Lopez Pass in the Santa Rita Mountains. 

The width of the area surveyed by WestLand ranged from 150 feet to approximately 650 feet 

(the width of proposed surface disturbance within the survey corridor is expected to be 

approximately 50 feet). Approximately 18.5 miles of the preferred corridor route were surveyed 

in 2009; the easternmost 3.2 miles was not surveyed because it was determined that the area has 

no potential for Pima Pineapple cactus occurrence because of the presence of steep slopes, sandy 

washes, and bedrock. 

The survey followed guidelines provided by USFWS in the document titled Pima Pineapple 

cactus 3 Tier Survey Methods (Roller 1996). Surveyors walked parallel transects spaced 

approximately 15 feet apart in order to achieve 100% coverage of the survey area. The survey 

area was covered in a single pass. Coordinates for all Pima Pineapple cactus found during the 

survey were entered into a handheld Trimble global positioning system (GPS) unit. Pima 

Pineapple cactus were tagged with a unique number, and information was collected on the 

number of stems and general health of each plant. 

Sixty-seven living Pima Pineapple cactus have been found within the preferred TEP and water 

pipeline corridor, including the western, rerouted portion of the waterline (see Figures PPC-1 and 

PPC-2) (WestLand 2009a, 2009b, 2010b). Given that the width of proposed surface disturbance 

within the survey corridor is 50 feet, it is likely that several of these cacti would be avoided 

during construction of the proposed action. The total impact area (i.e., potentially suitable Pima 

Pineapple cactus habitat along the selected alternative route) is estimated to be approximately 

33.2 acres (17.2 acres permanently affected, 16.0 acres temporarily affected).

Effects of the Proposed Action - Pima Pineapple Cactus 

The use of the proposed utility corridor to provide power and water for the Rosemont Mine 

project would result in direct effects to Pima Pineapple cactus owing to the placement of 

electrical and water transmission lines and associated access roads. Approximately 67 live Pima 

Pineapple cactus and 33.2 acres of Pima Pineapple cactus habitat would be affected. Areas of 

permanent disturbance would remove portions of the seed bank, and areas of temporary 

disturbance could alter the seed bank. Disturbance of soils would change water infiltration, 
194

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

compact soil, and change local site conditions. Recently disturbed areas have an increased 

potential to be invaded by noxious weeds (e.g., Lehmann lovegrass), which can negatively affect 

Pima Pineapple cactus. Pima Pineapple cactus can be found in areas of recent disturbance, as 

competition with other plants for nutrients and light are reduced. Although some areas of 

temporary disturbance may recover, it may take many years before full recovery is achieved. 

Vasek et al. (1975) found that desert vegetation is fragile and easily destroyed, but does have a 

long-term potential (probably measured in centuries) to recover from substantial disturbance 

such as that associated with the construction of a utility corridor. 

Any individual Pima Pineapple cactus growing in the action area outside the mine footprint may 

experience indirect effects, such as fugitive dust. Effects from dust are likely to occur along the 

utility corridor as a result of traffic along the associated roadway. Existing traffic occurs in the 

area of the utility corridor, but the Rosemont mine project will result in a limited increase in 

traffic in the area of Santa Rita Road as a result of inspections and maintenance along the utility 

corridor. Physical effects of windborne fugitive dust on plants may include blockage and 

damage to stomata and shading and abrasion of the plant surface, which could result in reduced 

photosynthetic activity (Goodquarry 2011) and possibly reproductive success. These effects may 

also impact pollinators of Pima Pineapple cactus. 

The proposed action will result in the direct removal of 67 Pima Pineapple cactus and permanent 

or temporary effects to approximately 33.2 acres of Pima Pineapple cactus habitat within the 

action area. Within the context of Pima Pineapple cactus individuals and surveyed area we have 

reviewed through section 7 consultation on development projects, this project adds 67 

individuals and effects to 33.2 acres of Pima Pineapple cactus habitat to the known baselines. 

Within the range of the Pima Pineapple cactus in Arizona, this brings baseline numbers up to 

2,764 Pima Pineapple cactus individuals, of which, 2,051 will have been destroyed, removed, or 

transplanted, and 15,275 acres surveyed, of which 14,612 will have been permanently or 

temporarily impacted by development projects. What this means in the context of the entire 

range of the Pima Pineapple cactus is difficult to determine for the reasons discussed above. 

To offset the indirect effects to Pima Pineapple cactus and Pima Pineapple cactus habitat from 

invasive plant species, Rosemont has developed an Invasive Species Management Plan. This 

plan includes measures such as using weed-free seed and hay in reclamation and compliance 

actions, avoiding the use of invasive ornamental plants in landscaping and reclamation activities, 

and cleaning heavy equipment prior to use on the project to remove dirt, plant parts, and other 

materials that could carry invasive plant seeds. As part of the Invasive Species Management 

Plan, Rosemont will conduct monitoring of the project area once per year to determine the 

occurrence of invasive plant species. The goal of monitoring is to detect newly introduced 

invasive species and eliminate them before they infest the area and spread to other locations. 

The Invasive Species Management Plan is incorporated herein by reference. 

To offset the direct impacts to Pima Pineapple cactus and its habitat, Rosemont proposes to 

record a restrictive covenant on parcels of land that support Pima Pineapple cactus. The lands 

are located within the Helvetia Ranch North Parcels (see Figure PPC-3). The proposed 

conservation lands are currently occupied by Pima Pineapple cactus and support appropriate 
195

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Pima Pineapple cactus habitat. Prior to initiation of construction on the utility corridor, the 

restrictive covenant will be recorded for the 940 acres that make up these ranch parcels. 

Figure PPC-3: Helvetia Ranch North Pima Pineapple Cactus Conservation Parcels
196

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

In summary, the proposed action will result in the direct loss of 67 Pima Pineapple cactus and

effects to 33.2 acres of Pima Pineapple cactus habitat. This represents a loss of approximately 

3.3 percent of the known individuals and 0.2 percent of the surveyed area we have reviewed 

through section 7 consultations (including this one). Rosemont proposes to offset this loss by 

setting aside 940 acres within the Helvetia Ranch parcels, 705 acres of which currently support 

Pima pineapple cactus or which contain soils and other habitat conditions suitable for the 

species. The project, while contributing to further fragmentation of Pima Pineapple cactus 

habitat, also contributes to the survival and recovery of Pima Pineapple cactus because it will 

establish protection from certain threats for Pima Pineapple cactus on the Helvetia Ranch 

parcels. 

Cumulative Effects - Pima Pineapple Cactus 

Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, Tribal, local, or private actions that are 

reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this biological opinion. Future 

Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section 

because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act. Federal land 

managers, the Coronado National Forest and Bureau of Land Management, manage 

approximately 45 percent of the lands affected by the Rosemont Mine project, and administer 

projects and permits on those lands. However, within the action area for the Pima Pineapple 

cactus, lands are primarily non-Federal, so there are many activities that could potentially affect 

Pima Pineapple cactus that are not Federal activities and thus not subject to additional Section 7 

consultation under the ESA. 

Activities that could result in cumulative effects to Pima Pineapple cactus include continued road 

maintenance, grazing activities, the spread of invasive species, and recreation in the action area, 

current and future development, other nearby mining projects, and unregulated activities on nonfederal lands, such as trespass livestock and inappropriate use of OHVs. Adjacent open space, 

such as that found within the Santa Rita Experimental Range and other State Trust lands often 

provides recreational areas for nearby residents, and the use of these lands for recreation, offroad vehicle use, and illegal dumping of trash can ultimately lead to habitat degradation and 

possible loss of Pima Pineapple cactus. Additional cumulative effects on Pima Pineapple cactus 

include cross-border activities such as human traffic; deposition of trash; new trails from human 

traffic; increased fire risk from human traffic; and water depletion and contamination. From all 

of these activities, there is an increased risk of non-native invasive plant invasion, leading to both 

competition for limited resources and increased fire occurrence and intensity, all of which 

threaten Pima Pineapple cactus conservation and survival. 

As discussed above, threats to Pima Pineapple cactus continue to include habitat loss and 

fragmentation both for the plant and its pollinators, competition with non-native species, and 

inadequate regulatory mechanisms to protect this species. We conclude that residential and 

commercial development, and its infrastructure, is a significant threat to Pima Pineapple cactus 

and its habitat, and that drought, nonnative plant invasion, and predation are also severe threats. 

The cumulative effects mentioned above all contribute to these ongoing threats to Pima 
197

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Pineapple cactus in the action area. The conservation of the Pima Pineapple cactus population in 

the southern portions of Tucson, extending into the Green Valley area, is tenuous given the 

extent of these threats and the likelihood that these threats will continue into the foreseeable 

future. Consideration of the conservation needs of Pima Pineapple cactus is included in the 

proposed habitat conservation plans being developed by the City of Tucson and Pima County, 

and implementation of these habitat conservation plans may help to reduce the extent of 

cumulative impact of non-Federal actions in the vicinity of the action area for Pima Pineapple 

cactus related to the Rosemont Mine project. 

Conclusion - Pima Pineapple Cactus 

After reviewing the current status of Pima Pineapple cactus, the environmental baseline for the 

action area, the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is our biological 

opinion that the Rosemont Mine project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the 

Pima Pineapple cactus. No critical habitat has been designated for this species; therefore, none 

will be affected. Our rationale for this conclusion is as follows: 

1. The loss of 67 Pima Pineapple cactus and effects to 33.2 acres of Pima Pineapple cactus 

habitat represents less than two percent of the Pima Pineapple cactus individuals (the 

majority of which were destroyed) and area surveyed for which we have conducted 

section 7 consultations. Additional Pima Pineapple cactus and habitat occur throughout 

the range of the taxon, but we do not have the information to determine the percentage of 

the overall range which these 67 Pima Pineapple cactus and 33.2 acres represent. 

However, based on the sites we have evaluated and for which we have information, the 

number of Pima Pineapple cactus and acres of Pima Pineapple cactus habitat impacted 

related to this project are relatively small and, additively, contribute a relatively small 

number of plants and acres to the effects we have evaluated. 

2. Rosemont is proposing measures to reduce direct impacts to Pima Pineapple cactus 

during the construction of the utility corridor. 

3. To offset effects from the Rosemont Mine project, Rosemont will protect approximately 

700 acres of occupied Pima Pineapple cactus habitat on the Helvetia Ranch North parcels 

by recording a restrictive covenant on the parcels which will protect Pima Pineapple 

cactus from certain activities outlined as threats to Pima Pineapple cactus in our 

discussion above. This action will also address to some extent the ongoing cumulative 

effects to Pima Pineapple cactus habitat in the vicinity of the action area by removing the 

potential for future development of these lands in the future.

4. The relatively small magnitude of effects described under Conclusion 1 and the 

conservation measures described under Conclusion 3, above, indicate that the proposed 

action is unlikely to diminish the potential to achieve recovery of the Pima pineapple 

cactus.
198

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT - PIMA PINEAPPLE CACTUS 

Sections 7(b)(4) and 7(o)(2) of the Act generally do not apply to listed plant species. However, 

limited protection of listed plants from take is provided to the extent that the Act prohibits the 

removal and reduction to possession of Federally listed endangered plants from areas under 

Federal jurisdiction, or for any act that would remove, cut, dig up, or damage or destroy any such 

species on any other area in knowing violation of any regulation of any State or in the course of 

any violation of a State criminal trespass law. 

Conservation Recommendations - Pima Pineapple Cactus 

Sections 2(c) and 7(a)(1) of the Act direct Federal agencies to use their authorities to further the 

purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of listed species. 

Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid effects 

of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or to 

develop information. 

1. We recommend that the FS participate in efforts to identify and conserve Pima Pineapple 

cactus throughout its range, including participation in forums that address the control of 

invasive, exotic plants (e.g. buffelgrass and Lehmann lovegrass). 

2. We recommend that FS support research and monitoring proposals that will contribute to 

an increased understanding of important conservation efforts related to Pima Pineapple 

cactus such as the effectiveness of translocating Pima Pineapple cactus, appropriate 

management of conservation lands and conservation banks to promote recovery of Pima 

Pineapple cactus, and effects of climate change and fire on Pima Pineapple cactus. 

3. We recommend the FS work with Rosemont to implement measures on the Helvetia 

Ranch North parcels, including appropriate monitoring of Pima Pineapple cactus and 

Pima Pineapple cactus habitat, so that the conservation approach on these parcels is 

consistent with other conservation lands, including Conservation Banks, established for 

the conservation of Pima Pineapple cactus. These measures should include the following 

in order to ensure the conservation of Pima Pineapple cactus in perpetuity: 

(a.) The conservation lands should be surveyed with 100% survey coverage using an 

approved Pima Pineapple cactus survey protocol. All Pima Pineapple cactus that 

are detected during the survey effort should be mapped, GPS coordinates 

recorded, and information regarding the condition and status of each cactus 

should be collected. This information should be provided to FWS. 

(b.) A management plan addressing actions needed for long-term conservation of the 

conservation lands, and all Pima Pineapple cactus within the conservation lands, 

should be developed and implemented in perpetuity. The management plan 

should address issues such as fencing and fence maintenance, invasive species 
199

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

management, fire management, approved and prohibited land uses, maintaining 

appropriate buffers from surrounding land uses, etc. The management plan 

should also address monitoring, which should include monitoring every three 

years to document the status of known cacti, as well as the presence of any new 

cacti. Annual reports on the status of the conservation lands should be submitted 

to the FWS. 

(c.) Adequate funding should be provided to implement the management plan and 

required monitoring. 

In order that we are kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or 

benefiting listed species or their habitats, we request notification of the implementation of any 

conservation recommendations.

Status of the Species – Chiricahua Leopard Frog 

The Chiricahua leopard frog was listed as a threatened species without critical habitat in a 

Federal Register notice dated June 13, 2002. Included was a special rule to exempt operation 

and maintenance of livestock tanks on non-Federal lands from the section 9 take prohibitions of 

the Act. Final designation of critical habitat was made on March 20, 2012 (77 FR 16324) and 

included 39 sites in Arizona and New Mexico. 

The frog is distinguished from other members of the Lithobates pipiens complex by a 

combination of characters, including a distinctive pattern on the rear of the thigh consisting of 

small, raised, cream-colored spots or tubercles on a dark background; dorsolateral folds that are 

interrupted and deflected medially; stocky body proportions; relatively rough skin on the back 

and sides; and often green coloration on the head and back (Platz and Mecham 1979). The 

species also has a distinctive call consisting of a relatively long snore of 1 to 2 seconds in 

duration (Platz and Mecham 1979, Davidson 1996). Snout-vent lengths of adults range from 

approximately 2.1 to 5.4 inches (Platz and Mecham 1979, Stebbins 2003). The Ramsey Canyon 

leopard frog (Lithobates “subaquavocalis”), found on the eastern slopes of the Huachuca 

Mountains, Cochise County, Arizona, has recently been subsumed into Lithobates chiricahuensis 

(Crother 2008) and recognized by the FWS as part of the listed entity (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service [USFWS] 2009). 

The range of the Chiricahua leopard frog includes central and southeastern Arizona; west-central 

and southwestern New Mexico; and, in Mexico, northeastern Sonora, the Sierra Madre 

Occidental of northwestern and west-central Chihuahua, and possibly as far south as northern 

Durango (Platz and Mecham 1984, Degenhardt et al. 1996, Lemos-Espinal and Smith 2007, 

Rorabaugh 2008). Reports of the species from the State of Aguascalientes (Diaz and Diaz 1997) 

are questionable. The distribution of the species in Mexico is unclear due to limited survey work 

and the presence of closely related taxa (especially Lithobates lemosespinali) in the southern part 

of the range of the Chiricahua leopard frog. Historically, the frog was an inhabitant of a wide 

variety of aquatic habitats, including cienegas, pools, livestock tanks, lakes, reservoirs, streams, 

and rivers at elevations of 3,281 to 8,890 feet. However, the species is now limited primarily to 
200

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

headwater streams, springs and cienegas, and cattle tanks into which nonnative predators (e.g. 

sportfishes, American bullfrogs, crayfish, and tiger salamanders) have not yet invaded or where 

their numbers are low (USFWS 2007). The large valley-bottom cienegas, rivers, and lakes 

where the species occurred historically are populated with nonnative predators at densities with 

which the species cannot coexist. 

The primary threats to this species are predation by nonnative organisms and die offs caused by a 

fungal skin disease – chytridiomycosis (caused by the skin fungus, Batrachochytrium 

dendrobatidis (Bd)). Additional threats include drought, floods, degradation and loss of habitat 

as a result of water diversions and groundwater pumping, poor livestock management, altered 

fire regimes due to fire suppression and livestock grazing, mining, development, and other 

human activities; disruption of metapopulation dynamics, increased chance of extirpation or 

extinction resulting from small numbers of populations and individuals, and environmental 

contamination (USFWS 2007). Loss of Chiricahua leopard frog populations is part of a pattern 

of global amphibian decline, suggesting other regional or global causes of decline may be 

important as well (Carey et al. 2001). Witte et al. (2008) analyzed risk factors associated with 

disappearances of ranid frogs in Arizona and found that population loss was more common at 

higher elevations and in areas where other ranid population disappearances occurred. 

Disappearances were also more likely where introduced crayfish occur, but were less likely in 

areas close to a source population of frogs. 

Based on 2009 data, the species is still extant in the major drainage basins in Arizona and New 

Mexico where it occurred historically; with the exception of the Little Colorado River drainage 

in Arizona and possibly the Yaqui drainage in New Mexico. It has not been found recently in 

many rivers within those major drainage basins, valleys, and mountains ranges, including the 

following in Arizona: White River, West Clear Creek, Tonto Creek, Verde River mainstem, San 

Francisco River, San Carlos River, upper San Pedro River mainstem, Santa Cruz River 

mainstem, Aravaipa Creek, Babocomari River mainstem, and Sonoita Creek mainstem. In 

southeastern Arizona, no recent records (1995 to the present) exist for the Pinaleño Mountains or 

Sulphur Springs Valley. Once thought to be extirpated from the Chiricahua Mountains, the 

species now occurs in Cave Canyon, in the vicinity of the Southwestern Research Station 

operated by the Smithsonian Institution. The species is now absent from all but one of the 

southeastern Arizona valley bottom cienega complexes. In many of these regions Chiricahua 

leopard frog were not found for a decade or more despite repeated surveys. 

As of 2009, there were 84 sites in Arizona at which Chiricahua leopard frog occur or are likely to 

occur in the wild, with an additional four captive or partially captive refugia sites. At least 33 of 

the wild sites support breeding. In New Mexico, 15-23 breeding sites were known in 2008; the 

frogs occur at additional dispersal sites. The species has been extirpated from about 80 percent 

of its historical localities in Arizona and New Mexico. Nineteen and eight localities are known 

from Sonora and Chihuahua, respectively. The species’ current status in Mexico is poorly 

understood; however, it has been found in recent years in western Chihuahua. Some threats, 

such as introduced nonnative predators and the threat of catastrophic wildfire, appear to be less 

important south of the border, particularly in the mountains where Chiricahua leopard frog have 

been found (Gingrich 2003, Rosen and Melendez 2006, Rorabaugh 2008). 
201

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

The chytridiomycete skin fungus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd), the organism that 

causes chytridiomycosis, is responsible for global declines of frogs, toads, and salamanders 

(Berger et al. 1998, Longcore et al. 1999, Speare and Berger 2000, Hale 2001). Decline or 

extinction of about 200 amphibian species worldwide has been linked to the disease (Skerratt et 

al. 2007). In Arizona, Bd infections have been reported from numerous populations of 

Chiricahua leopard frog in southeastern Arizona and one population on the Tonto National 

Forest, as well as populations of several other frogs and toads in Arizona (Morell 1999,

Davidson et al. 2000, Sredl and Caldwell 2000, Hale 2001, Bradley et al. 2002, USFWS 2007). 

In New Mexico, chytridiomycosis appears to be widespread in populations in west-central New 

Mexico, where it often leads to population extirpation. A threats assessment conducted for the 

species during the development of the recovery plan identified Bd as the most important threat to 

the frog in recovery units 7 and 8 in New Mexico. In recovery unit 6, which includes much of 

the mountainous region of west-central New Mexico, Bd and nonnative predators were together 

identified as the most important threats. Die-offs from disease typically occur during the cooler 

months from October-February (USFWS 2007). 

The role of the Bd fungus in the population dynamics of the Chiricahua leopard frog is as yet 

undefined. Some populations are driven to extinction soon after the animals become 

symptomatic; however, other Chiricahua leopard frog populations can exist with the pathogen 

for years (USFWS 2007). For instance, the frog has coexisted with Bd in Sycamore Canyon, 

Santa Cruz County, Arizona since at least 1972. That is the earliest record for Bd in the western 

United States, which roughly corresponds to the first observed mass die-offs of ranid frogs in 

Arizona. Even in cases where populations exist with the disease, it is an additional stressor, 

resulting in periodic die-offs that increase the likelihood of extirpation and extinction. 

Epizootiological data from Central America and Australia (high mortality rates, wave-like spread 

of declines, wide host range) suggest introduction of the disease into previously uninfected 

populations and the disease subsequently becoming enzootic in some areas. Alternatively, the 

fungus may be a widespread organism that has emerged as a pathogen because of either higher 

virulence or an increased host susceptibility caused by other factors such as environmental 

changes (Berger et al. 1998), including changes in climate or microclimate, contaminant loads, 

increased UV-B radiation, or other factors that cause stress (Pounds and Crump 1994; Carey et 

al. 1999, 2001; Daszak 2000). Morehouse et al. (2003) found low genetic variability among 35 

Bd strains from North America, Africa, and Australia, suggesting that the first hypothesis – that 

it is a recently emerged pathogen that has dispersed widely – is the correct hypothesis. 

The infection intensity or lethal threshold of Bd is perhaps more important to control than the 

prevalence of infection (the proportion of infected hosts). Efforts to limit multiple exposures to 

the pathogen can prevent the host population from reaching the lethal threshold of zoospores per 

frog. In a nine to13 year study by Vredenberg et al. (2010), a Bd infection took three years to 

spread until nearly all the 88 yellow-legged frog populations at a lake were infected. A lethal 

threshold of about 10,000 zoospores of the fungus per frog caused the collapse of these 

amphibian populations with Bd. Within a population, as the infection prevalence reached 100%, 

the infection intensity on individual frogs increased in parallel. Frog mass mortality began only 
202

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

when infection intensity reached a critical threshold and repeatedly led to extinction of 

populations. Our results indicate that the high growth rate and virulence of Bd allow the nearsimultaneous infection and buildup of high infection intensities in all host individuals; 

subsequent host population crashes therefore occur before Bd is limited by density-dependent 

factors. Preventing infection intensities in host populations from reaching this threshold could 

provide an effective strategy to avoid the extinction of susceptible amphibian species in the wild. 

Because of a threshold of zoospores per frog must be reached before it results in mortality, there 

is a time lag between exposure to the pathogen and mortality. This time lag allows for the spread 

of the pathogen throughout the amphibian population before the population crashes. Unlike 

other pathogens that disappear as their hosts decline in numbers, this pathogen can cause the 

extirpation of its host population (Blaustein and Johnson 2010). 

Because of this threshold, there is a time lag between exposure and mortality, so the pathogen 

can spread through much of the amphibian population before disease-driven reductions in host 

density negatively affect the transmission of Bd. Consequently, the pathogen can cause the loss 

and extinction of its host population, unlike the many other pathogens that disappear as their 

hosts decline in numbers (Blaustein and Johnson 2010). 

Retrospective analysis revealed presence of chytridiomycosis in wild African clawed frogs 

(Xenopus laevis) dating to 1938 (Weldon et al. 2004). African clawed frogs were exported to 

many areas of the globe from Africa for use in human pregnancy testing beginning in the 1930s. 

Some of the test frogs escaped or were released and established populations in California, 

Arizona, and other areas. Although other explanations for the origin of the disease are viable, 

Weldon et al. (2004) suggest that Africa is where the disease originated and that international 

trade in African clawed frogs was the means of disease dissemination. 

If the disease was introduced to the Southwest via escaped or released clawed frogs, it may have 

spread across the landscape by human introductions or natural movements of secondarilyinfected American bullfrogs, tiger salamanders, or leopard frogs. If this is the case, its rapid 

establishment and spread could be attributable to humans. Bd does not have an airborne spore, 

so it must spread via other means. Amphibians in the international pet trade (Europe and USA), 

outdoor pond supplies (USA), zoo trade (Europe and USA), laboratory supply houses (USA), 

and species recently introduced (Rhinella marinus in Australia and American bullfrog in the 

USA and Uruguay) have been found infected with Bd, suggesting human-induced spread of the 

disease (Daszak 2000, Mazzoni et al. 2003). 

Free-ranging healthy bullfrogs with low-level Bd infections have been found in southern Arizona 

(Bradley et al. 2002). Tiger salamanders and bullfrogs can carry the disease without exhibiting 

clinically significant or lethal infections. When these animals move, or are moved by people, 

among aquatic sites, Bd may be carried with them (Collins et al. 2003, Picco and Collins 2008). 

Other native or nonnative frogs may serve as disease vectors or reservoirs of infection, as well 

(Bradley et al. 2002). Green and Dodd (2007) found Bd in bullfrogs at a fish hatchery in 

Georgia and suggested the disease could be moved with stocks of fish. Since that study, Bd was 

confirmed from a bullfrog captured at the Bubbling Ponds Hatchery in Arizona (V. Boyarski, 

pers. comm.). Bd could also be spread by tourists or fieldworkers sampling aquatic habitats 
203

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

(Halliday 1998). The fungus can exist in water or mud and thus could be spread by wet or 

muddy boots, vehicles, cattle, fishing gear, and other animals moving among aquatic sites, or 

during scientific sampling of fish, amphibians, or other aquatic organisms. The AESO and 

AGFD are employing preventative measures to ensure the disease is not spread by aquatic 

sampling. 

Numerous studies indicate that declines and extirpations of Chiricahua leopard frog are at least in 

part caused by predation and possibly competition by nonnative organisms, including fishes in 

the family Centrarchidae (Micropterus spp., Lepomis spp.), bullfrogs, tiger salamanders 

(Ambystoma mavortium mavortium), crayfish (Orconectes virilis and possibly others), and 

several other species of fishes (Clarkson and Rorabaugh 1989; Sredl and Howland 1994; 

Fernandez and Bagnara 1995; Rosen et al. 1996, 1994; Snyder et al. 1996; Fernandez and Rosen 

1996, 1998). For instance, in the Chiricahua region of southeastern Arizona, Rosen et al. (1996) 

found that almost all perennial waters investigated that lacked introduced predatory vertebrates 

supported Chiricahua leopard frogs. All waters except three that supported introduced vertebrate 

predators lacked Chiricahua leopard frogs. Sredl and Howland (1994) noted that Chiricahua 

leopard frogs were nearly always absent from sites supporting bullfrogs and nonnative predatory 

fish. Rosen et al. (1996) suggested further study was needed to evaluate the effects of 

mosquitofish, trout, and catfish on frog presence. 

The effect of mosquitofish on Chiricahua leopard frog populations could be influenced by factors 

such as abundant escape cover, high adult frog survivorship, and high reproductive output in 

terms of numbers of frog egg masses produced. Examination of studies with other ranid frog 

species illustrates the likely effects of trout on Chiricahua leopard frog. The relationship 

between trout and amphibian decline has best been documented with the Mountain yellowlegged frog (Rana muscosa) in high lakes of the Sierra Nevada, California. Several authors have 

concluded that predation by introduced trout and charr (Salveninus spp.) into these previously 

fishless lakes have eliminated many populations of this species (Bradford 1989, Bradford et al. 

1993, Knapp and Mathews 2000, Vredenburg et al. 2005). One of the threats that lead to the 

listing of the southern California populations of the Mountain yellow-legged frog was predation 

by introduced trout. However, other factors, including chytridiomycosis and pesticides, are 

possible contributors to the decline of the species as well (Fellers et al. 2001, 2004; Vredenburg 

et al. 2005). Predation by trout has also been also implicated as a factor in decline or population 

loss in the Cascades frog (Rana cascadae, Fellers et al. 2007) and Columbia spotted frog (Rana 

luteiventris, Reaser and Pilliod 2005). 

Disruption of metapopulation dynamics is likely an important factor in regional loss of 

populations (Sredl and Howland 1994, Sredl et al. 1997). Chiricahua leopard frog populations 

are often small and habitats are dynamic, resulting in a relatively low probability of long-term 

population persistence. Historically, populations were more numerous and closer together. If 

populations became extirpated due to drought, disease, or other causes, these sites could be recolonized via immigration from nearby populations. However, as numbers of populations 

declined, populations became more isolated and were less likely to be re-colonized if extirpation 

occurred. Also, most of the larger source populations along major rivers and in cienega 

complexes have disappeared. 
204

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Wildfires have affected Chiricahua leopard frog habitat. On May 29, 2011, Arizona’s largest 

wildfire in recorded history started, known as the Wallow Fire. The Wallow Fire consumed 538, 

049 acres of montane conifer forest on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest and likely 

adversely affected proposed critical habitat in Unit 27, Campbell Blue and Coleman Creeks, 

although as of October 2010, little information is available on the post-fire status of potential 

Chiricahua leopard frog habitat within the fire footprint. Since many tanks and springs that are 

important for recovery of the species in this area occur in meadows, sediment flows may not 

affect them as they would habitat within canyon bottoms. 

Waters at the Beatty’s Guest Ranch in the Huachuca Mountains, until recently, supported one of 

the most robust and dense populations of Chiricahua leopard frogs. On June 12, 2011, the 

Monument Fire started 4-miles east of Hereford, Arizona; ultimately consuming 30,526 acres 

and significantly affecting a portion of the Huachuca Mountains, including Miller Canyon and 

the Beatty Guest Ranch. Subsequent monsoon precipitation in the region liberated significant 

amounts of top soil and sediment which scoured the canyon bottom and filled-in the majority of 

ponds and suitable habitat for the frog in lower Miller Canyon on the Ranch. The remaining 

population at the Ranch represents a small fraction of its former number. 

The Greaterville Fire started on May 2, 2011, and may have affected dispersal habitat along the 

eastern bajada of the Santa Rita Mountains (proposed critical habitat Units 7 and 8), but that fire 

was less severe, comparatively small-sized, and of shorter duration. 

Fire frequency and intensity in Southwestern forests are much altered from historical conditions 

(Dahms and Geils 1997). Before 1900, surface fires generally occurred at least once per decade 

in montane forests with a pine component. Beginning about 1870-1900, these frequent ground 

fires ceased to occur due to intensive livestock grazing that removed fine fuels, followed by 

effective fire suppression in the mid to late 20th century (Swetnam and Baisan 1996). Absence of 

ground fires allowed a buildup of woody fuels that precipitated infrequent but intense crown fires 

(Swetnam and Baisan 1996, Danzer et al. 1997). Absence of vegetation and forest litter 

following intense crown fires exposes soils to surface and rill erosion during storms, often 

causing high peak flows, sedimentation, and erosion in downstream drainages (DeBano and 

Neary 1996). These post-fire events have likely resulted in scouring or sedimentation of frog 

habitats (Wallace 2003). 

An understanding of the dispersal abilities of Chiricahua leopard frogs is the key to determining 

the likelihood that suitable habitats will be colonized from a nearby extant population of frogs. 

As a group, leopard frogs are surprisingly good at dispersal. In Michigan, young northern 

leopard frogs (Lithobates pipiens) commonly move up to 0.5 mile from their place of 

metamorphosis, and three young males established residency up to 8.4 miles from their place of 

metamorphosis (Dole 1971). Both adults and juveniles wander widely during wet weather (Dole 

1971). In the Cypress Hills, southern Alberta, young-of-the year northern leopard frogs 

successfully dispersed to downstream ponds 3.4 miles from the source pond, upstream 0.6 mile, 

and overland 0.6 mile. At Cypress Hills, a young-of-the-year northern leopard frog moved 5 

miles in one year (Seburn et al. 1997). The Rio Grande leopard frog (Lithobates berlandieri) in 
205

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

southwestern Arizona has been observed to disperse at least one mile from any known water 

source during the summer rainy season (Rorabaugh 2005). After the first rains in the Yucatan 

Peninsula, leopard frogs have been collected a few miles from water (Campbell 1998). In New 

Mexico, Jennings (1987) noted collections of Rio Grande leopard frogs from intermittent water 

sources and suggested these were frogs that had dispersed from permanent water during wet 

periods. 

Dispersal of leopard frogs away from water in the arid Southwest may occur less commonly than 

in mesic environments in Alberta, Michigan, or the Yucatan Peninsula during the wet season. 

However, there is evidence of substantial movements even in Arizona. Movement may occur via 

locomotion of frogs or passive movement of tadpoles along stream courses. The maximum 

distance moved by a radio-telemetered Chiricahua leopard frog in New Mexico was 2.2 miles in 

one direction (R. Jennings, Western New Mexico University, C. Painter, NMDGF, pers. 

comm. 2004). In 1974, Frost and Bagnara (1977) noted passive or active movement of 

Chiricahua and Plains (Lithobates blairi) leopard frogs for 5 miles or more along East Turkey 

Creek in the Chiricahua Mountains. In August, 1996, Rosen and Schwalbe (1998) found up to 

25 young adult and subadult Chiricahua leopard frog at a roadside puddle in the San Bernardino 

Valley, Arizona. They believed that the only possible origin of these frogs was a stock tank 

located 3.4 miles away. Rosen et al. (1996) found small numbers of Chiricahua leopard frog at 

two locations in Arizona that supported large populations of nonnative predators. The authors 

suggested these frogs could not have originated at these locations because successful 

reproduction would have been precluded by predation. They found that the likely source of these 

animals were populations 1.2-4.3 miles distant. In September 2009, 15-20 Chiricahua leopard 

frog were found at Peña Blanca Lake west of Nogales. The nearest likely source population is 

Summit Tank, a straight line distance of 3.1 miles overland and approximately 4.1 miles along 

intermittent drainages. 

Movements away from water do not appear to be random. Streams are important dispersal 

corridors for young northern leopard frogs (Seburn et al. 1997). Displaced northern leopard 

frogs will home, and apparently use olfactory and auditory cues, and possibly celestial 

orientation, as guides (Dole 1968, 1972). Rainfall or humidity may be an important factor in 

dispersal because odors carry well in moist air, making it easier for frogs to find other wetland 

sites (Sinsch 1991). Based on these studies, the Chiricahua leopard frog recovery plan (USFWS 

2007) provides a general rule on dispersal capabilities. Chiricahua leopard frogs are assumed to 

be able to disperse one mile overland, three miles along ephemeral drainages, and five miles 

along perennial water courses. 

A recovery plan has been completed (USFWS 2007), the goal of which is to improve the status 

of the species to the point that it no longer needs the protection of the Endangered Species Act. 

The recovery strategy calls for reducing threats to existing populations; maintaining, restoring, 

and creating habitat that will be managed in the long term; translocation of frogs to establish, 

reestablish, or augment populations; building support for the recovery effort through outreach 

and education; monitoring; conducting research needed to provide effective conservation and 

recovery; and application of research and monitoring through adaptive management. Recovery 

actions are recommended in each of eight recovery units throughout the range of the species. 
206

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Management areas are also identified within recovery units where the potential for successful 

recovery actions is greatest. 

Additional information about the Chiricahua leopard frog can be found in Platz and Mecham 

(1984, 1979), Sredl and Howland (1994), Jennings (1995), Rosen et al. (1996, 1994), 

Degenhardt et al. (1996), Sredl et al. (1997), Painter (2000), Sredl and Jennings (2005), and 

USFWS (2007). 

Critical Habitat 

The 2012 final rule includes 39 critical habitat units across the range of the species in Arizona 

and New Mexico. Based on the above needs and our current knowledge of the life history, 

biology, and ecology of the species, and the habitat requirements for sustaining the essential lifehistory functions of the species, we have determined the physical or biological features (the 

general habitat features upon which a species depends), as described by the primary constituent 

elements (or PCEs)(the more specific habitat parameters defining the physical and biological 

features), essential to the conservation of the Chiricahua leopard frog are: 

1. Aquatic breeding habitat and immediately adjacent uplands exhibiting the following 

characteristics: 

 a. Standing bodies of fresh water (with salinities less than 5 parts per thousand, pH 

greater than or equal to 5.6, and pollutants absent or minimally present), including 

natural and manmade (e.g., stock) ponds, slow-moving streams or pools within 

streams, off-channel pools, and other ephemeral or permanent water bodies that 

typically hold water or rarely dry for more than a month. During periods of 

drought, or less than average rainfall, these breeding sites may not hold water 

long enough for individuals to complete metamorphosis, but they would still be 

considered essential breeding habitat in non-drought years. 

b. Emergent and or submerged vegetation, root masses, undercut banks, fractured 

rock substrates, or some combination thereof, but emergent vegetation does not 

completely cover the surface of water bodies. 

c. Nonnative predators (e.g., crayfish, bullfrogs, nonnative fish) absent or occurring 

at levels that do not preclude presence of the Chiricahua leopard frog. 

d. Absence of chytridiomycosis, or if present, then environmental, physiological, 

and genetic conditions are such that allow persistence of Chiricahua leopard frogs. 

e. Upland habitats that provide opportunities for foraging and basking that are 

immediately adjacent to or surrounding breeding aquatic and riparian habitat. 

2. Dispersal and nonbreeding habitat, consisting of areas with ephemeral (present for only a 

short time), intermittent, or perennial water that are generally not suitable for breeding, 

and associated upland or riparian habitat that provides corridors (overland movement or 

along wetted drainages) for frogs among breeding sites in a metapopulation with the 

following characteristics: 
207

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

 a. Are not more than 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) overland, 3.0 miles (4.8 kilometers) 

along ephemeral or intermittent drainages, 5.0 miles (8.0 kilometers) along 

perennial drainages, or some combination thereof not to exceed 5.0 miles (8.0 

kilometers). 

b In overland and nonwetted corridors, provide some vegetation cover or structural 

features (e.g., boulders, rocks, organic debris such as downed trees or logs, small 

mammal burrows, or leaf litter) for shelter, forage, and protection from predators; 

in wetted corridors, provide some ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial aquatic 

habitat. 

 c. Are free of barriers that block movement by Chiricahua leopard frogs, including, 

but not limited to, urban, industrial, or agricultural development; reservoirs that 

are 50 acres (20 hectares) or more in size and contain nonnative predatory fish, 

bullfrogs, or crayfish; highways that do not include frog fencing and culverts; and 

walls, major dams, or other structures that physically block movement. 

The critical habitat units affected by the proposed action include: 

Eastern Slope of the Santa Rita Mountains Unit 

This unit includes 172 ac (70 ha) of lands in the Greaterville area of the Santa Rita Mountains 

that are managed by the Coronado National Forest, as well as 14 ac (6 ha) of private lands in this 

area. Included in this unit are two metal troughs in Louisiana Gulch, Greaterville Tank, Los 

Posos Gulch Tank, and the Granite Mountain Tank complex. The Granite Mountain Tank 

complex includes two impoundments and a well. We have determined this unit to be essential to 

the conservation of the species because it represents several known occupied areas that support 

or likely support breeding activity for the Chiricahua leopard frog in the Santa Rita Mountains. 

A number of other sites in this area have been found to support dispersing Chiricahua leopard 

frogs. Designated critical habitat also includes intervening drainages as follows: (1) From Los 

Posos Gulch upstream to a saddle, then downslope in an unnamed drainage to the confluence 

with another unnamed drainage, then upstream and south in that drainage to a saddle, and 

downslope through an unnamed drainage to its confluence with Ophir Gulch, then in Ophir 

Gulch to upper Granite Mountain Tank, to include an ephemeral tank near upper Granite 

Mountain Tank and a well; (2) from Greaterville Tank downstream in an unnamed drainage to 

Ophir Gulch; and (3) Louisiana Gulch from the metal tanks upstream to the headwaters of 

Louisiana Gulch then across a saddle and downslope through an unnamed drainage to its 

confluence with Ophir Gulch. Additionally, this unit has both PCEs 1 and 2. 

Las Cienegas National Conservation Area Unit 

This unit is in Pima County, Arizona, and includes 1,364 ac (552 ha) of Bureau of Land 

Management lands and 186 ac (75 ha) of Arizona State Land Department lands, including an 

approximate 4.33-mi (6.98-km) reach of Empire Gulch and 1.91 mi (3.08 km) of Cienega Creek, 

including the Cinco Ponds. This unit currently contains PCEs 1 and 2 to support life-history 

functions essential for the conservation of the species. This reach includes: (1) Empire Gulch 

from a pipeline road crossing above the breeding site downstream to Cienega Creek; and (2) 
208

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Cienega Creek from the Empire Gulch confluence upstream to the approximate end of the wetted 

reach and where the creek bends hard to the east, to include Cinco Ponds. This unit is currently 

managed an isolated metapopulation. 

 

Environmental Baseline - Chiricahua Leopard Frog 

The environmental baseline includes past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private 

actions in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal actions in the action 

area that have undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and the impact of State and 

private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation process. The environmental 

baseline defines the current status of the species and its habitat in the action area to provide a 

platform to assess the effects of the action now under consultation. 

Status of the Chiricahua Leopard Frog in the Action Area 

Recovery Unit 2 (Santa Rita-Huachuca-Ajos Bavispe, Arizona and Mexico) 

There are eight recovery units identified in the Chiricahua leopard frog recovery plan (USFWS 

2007). The action area pertaining to the Chiricahua leopard frog under this consultation includes 

portions of Recovery Unit 2 (RU2), which incorporates several metapopulations (or management 

areas) and critical habitat units. Specifically, we consider the action area to include the Santa 

Rita, Empire Cienega, and Red Rock-Sonoita Creek Management Areas which include the 

Eastern Slope of the Santa Rita Mountains, and Las Cienegas National Conservation Area 

critical habitat units. These areas are discussed in greater detail below, following general 

discussion of RU2. 

RU2 is generally located in portions of Cochise, Santa Cruz, and Pima counties, Arizona and 

adjacent portions of northern Sonora. This RU includes the upper reaches and headwaters of the 

San Pedro and Santa Cruz rivers, as well as the headwaters of the Rios Sonora, Magdalena, and 

Bavispe. Elevations vary from 9,466 feet on Miller Peak in the Huachuca Mountains to less than 

4,000 feet at the western base of the Sierra de Pinitos and on Sonoita Creek downstream of 

Patagonia. Vegetation communities include semi-desert grasslands at the lower elevations, 

climbing through oak and pine-oak woodlands to stands of mixed conifer forests. The latter are 

restricted to the higher elevations of the Santa Rita and Huachuca Mountains in Arizona, and to 

the Sierra de los Ajos, Sierra Cananea, Sierra Azul, and the southern portions of the Sierra 

Pinitos in Sonora (Brown and Lowe 1980). 

In RU2, Chiricahua leopard frogs are known historically from montane canyons below about 

6,230 feet and in valleys above about 4,000 feet. Historically they inhabited canyons such as 

Scotia Canyon in the Huachuca Mountains and Big Casa Blanca Canyon in the Santa Rita 

Mountains; valley bottom cienegas, such as Sheehy Spring and the Empire Cienega in the upper 

Santa Cruz River drainage; as well as major rivers, such as the San Pedro and Santa Cruz. Platz 

and Mecham (1979) list only a single locality in Sonora from RU2: on the Rio Santa Cruz 4 

miles south of the international boundary. However, the frog has been reported from the Ajos –

Bavispe region (The Nature Conservancy undated), including Canon Evens in the Sierra los Ajos 
209

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

(Hale pers. comm. 2004); leopard frogs (possibly Chiricahua leopard frogs) reportedly occur at 

the Los Fresnos Cienega and the Rancho Las Palmitas in the upper San Pedro River drainage 

(IMADES 2003); and likely also occur or occurred in other mountain ranges and valleys 

elsewhere in the Sonoran portion of RU2. Chiricahua leopard frogs are still well-represented in 

RU2, including populations on the eastern slope of the Santa Rita Mountains, Patagonia 

Mountains, Canelo Hills, Empire Cienega/Cienega Creek, Monkey Springs, Ajos-Bavispe 

area/upper San Pedro River basin, and San Rafael Valley. 

The management areas (MAs) within RU2, affected by the proposed action include: 

Santa Rita MA–Includes Box Canyon Wash-Upper Santa Cruz River hydrologic unit, Cienega 

Creek hydrologic unit, and Sonoita Creek hydrologic unit. The major threat in this MA is 

scarcity of water, particularly during long periods of drought. Also, fire in the watershed could 

result in scouring and sedimentation in the pools important as habitat for the frog. The breeding 

habitat at Louisiana Gulch, although limited to two 6.0-ft (1.8-m) diameter steel tanks, is 

dependable because it is fed by a well. The other tanks are filled by runoff and susceptible to 

drying during drought. Improvements have been made to important breeding habitat to improve 

their resiliency in holding water. West Tank, a tank formerly threatened by seasonal drying near 

Greaterville Tank, had piping installed in June 2011, which is fed by a nearby well and now 

supports a robust breeding population of Chiricahua leopard frogs. Greaterville Tank was 

dredged and lined in June 2012, which greatly improved its ability to maintain water during 

periods of short- to medium-term drought. Chytridiomycosis and nonnative predators are 

potential threats, but neither is considered a current threat in this MA. 

Table CLF-1: Chiricahua leopard frog survey data for the Santa Rita Management Area from 2010-

2012

Site Name Descriptor 2010 2011 2012 Notes

Cave Creek Sawmill Canyon 

Confluence

ND D D Adults, Juveniles

Anaconda Spring Temporal Gulch NS ND ND

Fish Canyon Fish Well ND NS NS

Fish Canyon Tank None ND NS NS

El Pilar Tank Trib of Adobe Canyon NS ND ND

Big Casa Blanca Canyon “Bathtubs” Area ND ND ND

Big Casa Blanca Canyon “Long Pool/Ledge 

Pool” Area

ND ND ND

Big Casa Blanca Canyon “String of Pools” Area ND NS ND

Unnamed Tank N of Fish Canyon NS ND NS

Unnamed Tank SW of Fish Canyon ND NS NS

Unnamed Tank Los Posos Gulch ND NS ND

Unnamed Tank Little Fish Canyon ND ND NS

Unnamed Tank S of Enzenberg Canyon ND D D Adults, Juveniles

Unnamed Tank NE of California Gulch ND NS NS

Unnamed Tank N of Thurber Ranch ND NS ND

Unnamed Tank Ophir Gulch D D ND Adults, Juveniles
210

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Table CLF-1:

2012

Chiricahua leopard frog survey data for the Santa Rita Management Area from 2010-

Site Name Descriptor 2010 2011 2012 Notes

Unnamed Tank California Gulch D D D Adults, Juveniles

Unmarked Tank Armada Mine – NS NS ND

Temporal Gulch

Unmarked Tank 1.2 mi from Crazy Lazy 

P Tank

NS ND D Juveniles

Unmarked Tank Just S of Hog Canyon 

on Mesa 

NS NS ND

Unnamed Tank SE of Adobe Tank ND NS NS

Unnamed Tank SE of Barrel Tank ND ND ND

Unnamed Tank W of Trail Canyon ND ND ND

Unnamed Tank S of Oak Tree Canyon ND NS NS

Unnamed Tank Unnamed Trib of ND NS NS

Empire Gulch

Unmarked Tank Louisiana Gulch ND NS NS

Unnamed Tank Los Posos Gulch ND NS NS

Unnamed Tank Enzenberg Canyon ND NS NS

Unnamed Tank Unnamed Trib of ND NS NS

Gardner Canyon

Jones Canyon Temporal Gulch NS NS ND

Adobe Canyon End of FS 234 ND ND ND

Bathtub Tank Adobe Canyon NS NS ND

Temporal Gulch From 4,450 to 6,450 ft 

elevation

NS NS ND

Box Canyon NW of Greaterville ND D D Adults, Juveniles

Highway Tank State Hwy 83 and Oak 

Creek Canyon

ND ND ND

Oak Tree Canyon Tank* Oak Tree Canyon ND ND ND

Greaterville Tank* NW of Greaterville D D D Adults, Juveniles

Granite Mountain Tank* Ophir Gulch D D D Adults, Juveniles, Larvae

Upper Walker Tank Walker Basin NS NS ND

Unnamed Drinkers Corral in Louisiana D D NS Adults, Juveniles, Larvae

Gulch

Unmarked Plastic 

Drinker/Spring

Ophir Gulch ND NS NS

Unmarked Drinker Sucker Gulch ND NS NS

Unnamed Drinker Sucker Gulch

Unnamed Drinker Ophir Gulch ND NS NS

Walker Canyon Walker Basin NS NS ND

Louisiana Gulch N of Sucker Gulch NS NS D Adults, Larvae

Bowman Tank* Empire Gulch ND D D Adults, Juveniles

Bowman Spring Mill Canyon ND NS ND

Lower 

Tank*

Granite Mountain Ophir Gulch ND ND ND

Unmarked Well W of Greaterville along 

Ophir Gulch

D D D Adults 
211

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Table CLF-1: Chiricahua leopard frog survey data for the Santa Rita Management Area from 2010-

2012

Site Name Descriptor 2010 2011 2012 Notes

Gardner Canyon Cave Creek-Gardner NS D D Adults, Juveniles, Larvae, 

Canyon Confluence Egg Masses; Robust 

Breeding Population

Gardner Canyon E of Tunnel Spring, W NS D ND Adults, Juveniles, Egg 

of Cave Creek Masses; Robust Breeding 

Confluence Population

West Tank* California Gulch D D D Adults, Juveniles, Larvae; 

Robust Breeding 

Population

Fish Tank* Hog Canyon NS D D Adults

Sweetwater Dam* SW of Sweetwater ND ND ND

Spring

Crazy Lazy P Tank* NW of Douglas Ranch ND D D Adults, Juveniles

Mesa Tanks Between Hog and NS NS ND

Adobe Canyons

Milo Tank* Nothern Trib of Hog NS ND ND

Canyon

Upper Enzenberg Tank* Enzenberg Canyon D+ ND ND + Ranid sp., Adult

Perfect Tank* Unnamed Trib of ND ND NS

Sawmill Canyon

Barrel Tank E of Oak Tree Canyon ND ND ND

Cemetery Tank* Ophir Gulch ND NS NS

Fish Dam* Fish Canyon ND NS NS

Granite Mountain Sucker Gulch ND NS NS

Drinker*

Gunsite Tank* W of McLeary Canyon ND ND ND

McLeary Tank* McLeary Canyon ND ND ND

North Basin Tank E of Barrel Canyon ND ND ND

Rosemont Crest Tank* E of Gunsite Pass ND ND ND

Roadside Tank* Gardner Canyon ND NS NS

South Upper Tank* W of Wasp Canyon ND ND ND

Oak Tree Windmill* Oak Canyon ND ND ND

Substation Tank* Empire Gulch ND NS NS

Notes: “NS” means “not surveyed,” “D” means species was “detected,” and “ND” means the species 

was “not detected.” “Unmarked” means the site was not marked on the corresponding USGS 7.5 minute 

quadrangle. “Unnamed” means the site was marked on the corresponding USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle 

but was not named. An asterisk denotes that the site was either unmarked or unnamed and was ascribed 

a name for identification purposes in the Arizona Game and Fish Department Ranid Frog Database. 

Survey data from sites on private lands are not included. Data provided by the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, Nongame Branch, Ranid Frogs Project and WestLand Resources, Inc.

Empire Cienega MA–Includes the Cienega Creek hydrologic unit. Approximately 60 

metamorphosed Chiricahua leopard frogs and 400 tadpoles were released to Las Cienegas 

Natural Conservation Area during the fall of 2011. Special management is required in this area 

to improve habitat, control disease, and remove nonnative species. A collaborative, three-year, 
212

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

multi-partner recovery program for the Chiricahua leopard frog and other native aquatic species 

known as the FROG Project was completed in 2012 at Las Cienegas which included habitat 

improvements, nonnative management, and headstarting Chiricahua leopard frogs. Significant 

progress was been made to eliminate bullfrogs from the area, but bullfrogs are still present 

regionally and represent a potential, on-going threat. Chiricahua leopard frogs suffer from 

chytridiomycosis in this area; however, the Chiricahua leopard frogs are persisting with the 

disease. Crayfish occur within a few miles and pose a significant threat if they reach Cienega 

Creek or Empire Gulch. 

Table CLF-2: Chiricahua leopard frog survey data for the Empire Cienega Management Area from 

2010-2012. 

Site Name Descriptor 2010 2011 2012 Notes

Mattie Canyon Empire Cienega ND ND NS

Road Canyon Tank Empire Cienega ND ND D Juveniles

Empire Spring NE of Empire Ranch NS D D Adults, Larvae, Egg 

Masses

Gardner Canyon E of Cottonwood Windmill NS NS ND

Cienega Creek The Narrows NS ND NS

Cienega Creek E of Empire Gulch ND ND ND Bullfrogs detected 

2010-2012

Cienega Creek SW of Cienega Ranch NS ND NS

Cienega Creek Headwaters ND NS NS

Cinco Ponds* E of Cienega Creek NS ND ND Bullfrogs detected 

2011 and 2012

Empire Gulch Cienega Creek ND NS NS

East Dam S of Barrel Canyon ND NS NS

Adobe Tank E of State Hwy 83 ND NS NS

Clyne Pond* Mud Spring Canyon ND ND ND Bullfrogs detected 

2010

Clyne Spring* Mud Spring Canyon NS ND NS

Boulder Tank Hilton Wash ND NS NS

Oil Well Tank Empire Cienega ND ND NS

Beck Tank* W of Cienega Creek ND NS NS

Bellota Tank* S of Los Posos Gulch ND NS NS

Big Pond* N of Fortynine Wash ND NS NS

Blacktail Tank W of Davidson Canyon ND NS NS

Cemetery Tank W of Davidson Canyon ND NS NS

Cottonwood Tank* Gardner Canyon ND NS NS

Dry Tank* S of Smith Canyon ND NS NS

Fish Tank* Davidson Canyon ND NS NS

Water Tank E of Cienega Creek ND NS NS

Hummel Tank* Cienega Creek ND NS NS

Landing Strip Tank* N of Fortynine Wash ND NS NS

Johnson Reservoir* W of Cienega Creek ND NS NS

East Johnson 

Reservoir*

Trib of Cienega Creek ND NS NS

Mulberry Tank Mulberry Canyon ND NS NS
213

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Enzenberg North Well N of North Canyon ND NS NS

Rattlesnake Tank* N of Cienega Creek ND NS NS

Reeves Tank* E of Cienega Creek ND NS NS

Regge Tank* S of Gardner Canyon ND NS NS

Unnamed Tank SW of Blacktail Tank ND NS NS

Unnamed Tank W of Davidson Canyon ND NS NS

Unnamed Tank Unnamed trib of Cienega 

Creek

ND NS NS

Smith Tank* Smith Canyon ND NS NS

Twin Tanks E of Davidson Canyon ND NS NS

Springwater Marsh* Empire Gulch ND NS NS

Wind Tank S of Hilton Wash ND NS NS

Unmarked Drinker N of Smith Canyon ND NS NS

Unmarked Tank Stoddard Ranch ND NS NS

Unmarked Tank Cienega Creek ND NS NS

Maternity Wildlife 

Pond**

Las Cienegas NCA - - - Adults and juveniles, 

hosts individuals 

from other sites

Cottonwood Wildlife 

Pond**

Las Cienegas NCA - - - Frogs introduced in 

2013

Cinco Pond No. 1** Las Cienegas NCA - - - Frogs introduced in 

2011

Road Canyon Tank** Las Cienegas NCA - - - Frogs introduced in 

2011

Empire Wildlife 

Pond**

Las Cienegas NCA - - - Frogs introduced in 

2013

Cinco Canyon 

Wildlife Pond**

Las Cienegas NCA - - - Frogs introduced in 

2013

Spring Water Wetland 

Pond**

Las Cienegas NCA - - - Frogs introduced in 

2013

Cienega Creek at Cold 

Spring Wetland**

Las Cienegas NCA - - - Frogs introduced in 

2012

Notes: “NS” means “not surveyed,” “D” means species was “detected,” and “ND” means the species 

was “not detected.” “Unmarked” means the site was not marked on the corresponding USGS 7.5 minute 

quadrangle. “Unnamed” means the site was marked on the corresponding USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle 

but was not named. An asterisk (*) denotes that the site was either unmarked or unnamed and was 

ascribed a name for identification purposes in the AGFD Ranid Frog Database. Survey data from sites 

on private lands are not included. Data provided by the AGFD, Nongame Branch, Ranid Frogs Project. 

A double-asterisk (**) indicates data provided by the BLM during a review of the draft BO.

Red Rock-Sonoita Creek MA–Includes the Sonoita Creek hydrologic unit. Red Rock Canyon 

maintains a largely native biotic community with four species of native fish, Sonoran tiger 

salamanders, and northern Mexican gartersnakes but bullfrogs and nonnative, soft-rayed fish 

species are also known to occur within the Red Rock subbasin. Sonoita Creek maintains a 

persistent population of bullfrogs, crayfish and nonnative, spiny-rayed fish that likely trace their 

origin to downstream Patagonia Lake which is fed by Sonoita Creek. We are not currently aware 

of any occupied sites in this MA. 
214

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Table CLF-3: Chiricahua leopard frog survey data for the Red Rock-Sonoita Creek Management Area 

from 2010-2012. 

Site Name Descriptor 2010 2011 2012 Notes

Unnamed Tank Gringo Gulch NS ND NS Bullfrogs detected 2010

Dark Tank* Dark Canyon ND NS NS

Notes: “NS” means “not surveyed,” “D” means species was “detected,” and “ND” means the species 

was “not detected.” “Unnamed” means the site was marked on the corresponding USGS 7.5 minute 

quadrangle but was not named. An asterisk denotes that the site was either unmarked or unnamed and 

was ascribed a name for identification purposes in the AGFD Ranid Frog Database. Survey data from 

sites on private lands are not included. Data provided by the AGFD, Nongame Branch, Ranid Frogs 

Project.

In total and within the Santa Rita (n=17) and Empire Cienega (n=2) MAs, we are aware of 19 

sites where Chiricahua leopard frogs have been documented in one or more life stages. West 

Tank and Gardner Canyon are considered the strongest breeding populations but reproduction 

has been observed in several other locations from 2010-2013 (see Tables CLF-1, 2, and 3, 

above). Recent efforts to improve the water storage capacity and duration of Greaterville Tank 

are expected to create a third robust breeding population in that area.

Effects of the Proposed Action - Chiricahua Leopard Frog 

Effects of the action refer to the direct and indirect effects of an action on the species or critical 

habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated and interdependent with 

that action, which will be added to the environmental baseline. Interrelated actions are those that 

are part of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification. Interdependent 

actions are those that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration. 

Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but are still 

reasonably certain to occur. The action area as it relates to the Chiricahua leopard frog includes 

the project site, all aquatic sites subject to the effects of surface flow reductions and groundwater 

drawdowns, and remote aquatic sites at which conservation measures will be implemented. 

The project description provided on pages 9-17 of the June, 2012, Biological Assessment for this 

project describes mining operations, ancillary operations, and reclamation and closure operations 

that will result in the direct disturbance of 5,421 acres of Federal, State, and private lands. This 

description will not be reiterated here, but independent facets of the proposed action that may 

affect the Chiricahua leopard frog or its critical habitat are identified and discussed below. We 

differentiate effects of the proposed action as those associated with the physical construction, 

operation, and closure of the mine and those associated with conservation measures included in 

the proposed action. 

Adverse Effects Associated with Mine Construction and Operation 

Adverse effects to Chiricahua leopard frogs are reasonably certain to occur over the life of the 

proposed action (up to 30 years), but are most likely to be heavily weighted towards the 

beginning phase of project implementation. Specifically, the majority of adverse effects are 
215

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

likely to result from the 18-month initial period of construction which will include the use of 

heavy earth-moving equipment to clear vegetation, build roads, construct infrastructure, 

manipulate area drainage patterns, build power lines and their access roads; seconded by 

sustained effects of harassment from lighting and noise associated with operations and discussed 

below. These activities will span all seasons of the calendar year and therefore overlap with 

periods recognized for Chiricahua leopard frog surface activity (March – October) and dispersal 

(July - September; monsoon). Individual frogs dispersing to or from known occupied sites 

nearby may be injured or killed by heavy equipment or their behavior may be modified by the 

effects of avoidance behaviors from construction activities in a manner that may result in 

decreased survivorship or fitness of individuals. Lower Stock Tank, the only tank within the 

active footprint of mine operations will be removed, but the tank will undergo pre-construction 

surveys which will greatly limit the number of individual frogs adversely affected by its removal. 

As a result of on-going mine operations which include vehicle use, blasting, drilling, lighting, 

and the processing and management of ore and waste materials, Chiricahua leopard frogs that 

find their way into the active mining area or cross roads associated with mining activity and may 

be harassed, injured, or killed. Chiricahua leopard frogs that are nearby but not within the active 

mining area may be harassed by noise and light pollution associated with blasting, operation of 

heavy machinery and equipment, and the lighting needs associated with the proposed action. 

Frogs of many species (including those on the genus Lithobates) are known may be attracted to 

light sources (Longcore and Rich 2004) which may create an attractive nuisance at the active 

mining area, but most observations of this lighting-behavior phenomena are with light sources 

several times smaller than that considered for a massive project on a local landscape level. 

Longcore and Rich (2004) reported conclusions by Rand et al. (1997) and Buchanan (pers. 

comm.) that artificial night lighting may interfere with amphibian breeding activities such as 

mate selection, inhibit or interfere with movement to and from breeding sites by stimulating 

phototactic behavior, or may cease breeding behaviors entirely. Increased nocturnal lighting can 

also increase the predation risk of frogs as found by Rand et al. (1997). The rate of attenuation 

with distance from these types of lighting effects on frogs is uncertain but logic suggests that 

effects are attenuated with increasing distance from the lighting source. Loud noises associated 

with blasting and heavy equipment operation may also affect nearby Chiricahua leopard frogs by 

interfering with male calling ability and therefore breeding success, both independently and in 

chorus with other males, as suggested by research on the European treefrog (Hyla arborea) by 

Lengagne (2008). Finally, Chiricahua leopard frogs that disperse into the active mining area 

may be injured or killed by exposure to toxic chemicals associated with ore processing and 

wastewater storage in open ponds or pits. 

As a result of groundwater drawdown after the life of the mine, the amount or volume of water 

within regional perennial pools could decrease, which could result in indirect effects on 

Chiricahua leopard frogs through long-term habitat alteration, which could cause die-back in 

aquatic and some riparian vegetation. Chiricahua leopard frogs have been documented within 

the action area in four locations that are fed by groundwater and where groundwater drawdown 

is possible after closure of the mine: Empire Gulch, Box Canyon–Dam Structure, Well in Ophir 

Gulch, and South Sycamore Canyon. We also note that reductions in discharge in Empire Gulch 

will result in reductions in flow in Cienega Creek below the confluence. The BLM also 
216

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

indicated that restored wetlands (Empire Wildlife, Cinco Canyon, and Spring Water Wetland 

ponds) which are scheduled to receive frogs may also be affectd by drawdowns. 

Groundwater flow models were designed to simulate conditions prior to pit development, during 

pit dewatering, and for a 1,000-year post-closure period of groundwater level recovery and 

potential pit lake development (Montgomery and Associates 2010; Tetra Tech 2010c), and it was 

determined that groundwater drawdown could result in the dewatering of key breeding sites and 

other streams, seeps, and springs that support, or that may support, breeding frogs. These 

indirect impacts are anticipated to be negligible and immeasurable until at least 50 years after 

project closure in Empire Gulch and Cienega Creek. After mining activity ceases, however, 

there are indirect effects anticipated based on long-term projections of the hydrology models. 

Uncertainties in the variables used to build the models, however, could be manifested as greater 

reductions of groundwater and greater impact to surface water levels (e.g., lower water level, 

more extensive dry reaches) and riparian vegetation than modeled. The timing and amount of 

groundwater drawdown at the Box Canyon Dam Structure, Ophir Gulch Well, and South 

Sycamore Canyon have been modeled but not specifically reported. These impacts could be 

critical during periods of low flow (May and June) because even small flow reductions could 

cause some portions of Cienega Creek, or other aquatic areas, to stop flowing. These modeled 

decreases in groundwater (less than 1 foot) would occur over a long period of time but could 

cause changes in riparian vegetation extent or health; the reduction in stream flow could impact 

this frog species, which needs standing or flowing water. Indirect effects of groundwater 

drawdown on Chiricahua leopard frogs breeding and foraging within these areas could result in 

reduction of substrate for eggs, substrate for organisms fed on by tadpoles and adult frogs, 

escape cover for tadpoles and adults, and moist microhabitats for frogs, hence reducing the 

success of eggs, altering growth rates of tadpoles, reducing food for tadpoles and adults, and 

increasing the exposure of tadpoles and adults to vertebrate predation and desiccation (Southwest 

Endangered Species Act Team 2008). The term “possible” means there is definitely enough 

drawdown to impact a spring, but the water source of the spring is unknown. If the spring arises 

from the regional aquifer, then it would be impacted; however, if it is a localized spring that is 

not connected to the regional aquifer, then it may not be impacted at all. 

Impacts to water quality and/or disruption of surface water flow resulting from the capture of 

runoff in the pit are only expected to occur along the Barrel Canyon drainage through Davidson 

Canyon to its confluence with Cienega Creek. The Chiricahua leopard frog is not known to 

currently occur in any of these reaches; however, lower Davidson Canyon Wash may provide 

suitable habitat for this species during high-water events. It is during these periods of connected 

surface flow that Chiricahua leopard frogs may disperse or be transported to downstream reaches 

of Cienega Creek and, from there, move upstream to temporary pools in Davidson Canyon 

Wash. If the placement of tailings in Barrel Canyon reduced the inundation time of these pools, 

the frogs will be affected. 

The same types of effects described above can also affect Chiricahua Leopard Frog prey species 

as a result of the proposed project activities, hence altering their predator-prey relationships and 

resulting in additional effects to Chiricahua leopard frogs. Additionally, because the mine pit 

lake water quality could exceed wildlife standards (which do not actually apply to the water) for 
217

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

three contaminants that are known to bioaccumulate (i.e., cadmium, mercury, and selenium), 

effects on this species could occur from eating winged aquatic invertebrates originating in and, 

via flight, being exported from the mine pit lake to sites where they may be preyed upon by 

Chiricahua leopard frogs. The results of geochemical modeling for the mine pit lake indicate 

that various contaminant levels that would result from these mining processes may exceed 

aquifer or surface water quality standards for wildlife. Cadmium is highly toxic to wildlife, is 

carcinogenic and teratogenic, and can have sublethal and lethal effects at low environmental 

concentrations (EPA 2011). It affects respiratory functions, enzyme levels, muscle contractions, 

growth reduction, and reproduction. Cadmium is known to bioaccumulate in the food chain. A 

portion of mercury released into the environment is transformed by abiotic and biotic chemical 

reactions to organic derivatives, such as methylmercury, which bioaccumulates in individual 

organisms, biomagnifies in aquatic food chains, and is the most toxic form of mercury to which 

wildlife are exposed (EPA 1997). Risks from selenium are primarily associated with aquatic 

species. Selenium is a bioaccumulative pollutant, and aquatic life is exposed to selenium 

primarily through diet (EPA 2004). Risks stem from aquatic life eating food that is contaminated 

with selenium, rather than from direct exposure to selenium in the water. 

Within the portions of the action area that include designated critical habitat for the Chiricahua 

leopard frog, it is possible that the proposed project could indirectly impact some of the PCEs of 

critical habitat for this species within those areas. Chiricahua leopard frogs are known to occur 

at seven locations within proposed critical habitat within the action area. There are two known 

Chiricahua leopard frog locations in designated critical habitat that are supported by 

groundwater: Ophir Gulch Well and Empire Gulch Springs. Groundwater drawdown at Empire 

Gulch is modeled to be measurable beginning 50 years after mine closure; the timing or amount 

of groundwater drawdown at Ophir Gulch Well has been modeled but not specifically reported. 

Other locations in Cienega Creek in designated critical habitat that are supported by groundwater 

are modeled to experience groundwater drawdown, and impacts are modeled to be negligible and 

immeasurable in Cienega Creek until at least 50 years after mine closure. Impacts to an 

interrupted perennial system, such as Cienega Creek, could be much greater during critical 

periods of low flow and during critical times of the year (May and June), and even small flow 

reductions could cause some portions of Cienega Creek, or other aquatic areas, to stop flowing. 

These modeled decreases in groundwater (less than 1 foot) would occur over a long period of 

time but could cause changes in riparian vegetation extent or health, and the reduction in stream 

flow could impact designated critical habitat for this aquatic frog species, which needs standing 

or flowing water. 

Cover vegetation at the edge of stock tanks in designated critical habitat, especially the areas of 

designated critical habitat near the proposed project area, could be negatively impacted by 

windborne fugitive dust coating leaves, resulting in reduced photosynthetic activity. Physical 

effects of dust on plants may include blockage and damage to stomata, shading, abrasion of leaf 

surface or cuticle, and cumulative effects (e.g., drought stress on already stressed species) 

(Goodquarry 2011). Reduced emergent vegetation cover or substrates could result in reduced of 

substrate for eggs, substrate for organisms fed upon by tadpoles and adult frogs, escape cover for 

tadpoles and adults, and moist microhabitats for frogs, hence reducing the success of eggs, 

altering growth rates of tadpoles, reducing food for tadpoles and adults, and increasing the 
218

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

exposure of tadpoles and adults to vertebrate predation and desiccation (Southwest Endangered 

Species Act Team 2008). Comments submitted by the USFS (see USFS 2013d as cited in the 

Description of the Proposed Action), indicate that National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) are not anticipated to be exceeded outside of the perimeter fence and thus, the 

aforementioned dust effects are unlikely to occur. 

It is possible that the proposed mine and associated disturbances could also result in increases in 

populations of nonnative species and could create conditions suitable for the presence of Bd. Bd

has been documented from Las Cienegas NCA (USFWS 2012b) but not confirmed from the 

Santa Rita Mountains; however, there is speculation that Bd may have been present in 

Tarahumara Frogs (Lithobates tarahumarae) in the Santa Rita Mountains in the past (Hale et al. 

2005; Rorabaugh et al. 2005). 

Effects from Conservation Measures 

Numerous conservation measures are included in the proposed action; some that benefit the 

Chiricahua leopard frog directly and others, indirectly. Although most of these actions should be 

considered beneficial to the Chiricahua leopard frog in both the short- and long-term, brief but 

adverse effects are also associated with implementation of these activities. In some instances, 

conservation measures could pose more harm than good to the Chiricahua leopard frog and are 

therefore being replaced or modified by terms and conditions described below. Following, we 

discuss the effects associated with the proposed conservation measures. 

Sonoita Creek Ranch – The general scope and purpose of proposed management on the Sonoita 

Creek Ranch is commensurate with ongoing recovery strategies outlined in the Chiricahua 

leopard frog Recovery Plan (FWS 2007); that is to say, management to benefit native aquatic 

species. We concur with the AGFD’s recommendation in their letter dated February 14, 2013, 

that these two large ponds will be better managed for native vertebrates if they were 

reconstructed as a conglomeration of smaller bodies of water, after the removal of existing 

nonnative species. The construction of barrier fencing to restrict movement of bullfrogs was not 

included as part of this specific conservation measure. Without the construction of barrier 

fencing around these constructed water features, regional bullfrog populations are likely to 

infiltrate these ponds and render them useless for Chiricahua leopard frog conservation. Barrier 

fencing will allow these water features to act as self-sustaining source populations of Chiricahua 

leopard frogs by providing individuals, larvae, and egg masses for introductions elsewhere in the 

three affected frog management areas. It is likely that some level of larval Chiricahua leopard 

frog predation can be expected by interactions with Gila chub in ponds where both species are 

present. In general terms, conservation activities associated with introducing Chiricahua leopard 

frogs into these waters for conservation purposes will result in harassment of individuals and on 

rare occasion, injury or death of individuals from activities associated with capture, storage, 

transportation, and release of frogs in all life stages. These potential adverse effects are far 

outweighed by the benefits gained in recovery of the species. This conservation measure in its 

original form has been affectively modified by Term and Condition 4, below, to provide greater 

conservation value for Chiricahua leopard frogs. 
219

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Chiricahua Leopard Frog-Specific Measures – Anticipated effects to Chiricahua leopard frogs 

from general survey, capture, and relocation of frogs outlined in the Conservation Measures 

above may include harassment of individuals and on rare occasion, injury or death of individuals 

from activities associated with capture, storage, transportation, and release of frogs in all life 

stages. These potential adverse effects are far outweighed by the benefits gained in recovery of 

the species. 

In addition to the known anticipated effects to Chiricahua leopard frogs from general survey, 

capture, and relocation of frogs discussed previously that we understand will precede any 

physical tank renovation work at a given site, we expect that a small percentage of adults and 

potentially numerous tadpoles may be injured or killed as a result of project implementation. 

These effects are in addition to harassment of frogs in any life stage present in selected sites from 

the capture, detainment, and potential relocation of resident frogs. It should be noted that 

improvements to a given tanks’ ability to hold water for longer periods does not ultimately 

preserve the tanks suitability for occupation under medium- to long-term drought stress. Only 

installing an artificial water supply (such as a solar groundwater well) can warrant such a 

guarantee. For maximum conservation benefit, we supersede this conservation measure with 

Term and Condition 5, below, which: (1) requires that a guaranteed water supply shall be 

installed at each of the seven tanks being improved to secure against their drying during periods 

of prolonged drought conditions; and (2) adding that the location and selection of tanks for 

improvement should be a collaborative decision with the Chiricahua leopard frog local recovery 

group consisting of the Coronado National Forest, other entities, direct stakeholders, cooperating 

permitees, and FWS (local recovery group) as landscape and resource variables and regional 

threats are expected to change over the 25-year active life of the project and it may be necessary 

to focus such efforts at other sites within the affected management areas. 

Anticipated effects to Chiricahua leopard frogs from general survey, capture, and relocation of 

frogs that are associated with the creation of additional water features to support Chiricahua 

leopard frogs may include harassment of individuals and on rare occasion, injury or death of 

individuals from activities associated with capture, storage, transportation, and release of frogs in 

all life stages to these new sites. Under the same premise as discussed immediately above, the 

location and selection of sites for creation should be a collaborative decision with the local 

recovery group for maximum conservation benefit. 

Because effective nonnative species management is directly linked to surveys and monitoring, 

we expect resident Chiricahua leopard frogs in all life stages to be harmed or harassed as 

discussed previously where they occur in sites selected. We expect nonnative species 

management to occur in all three affected Chiricahua leopard frog Management Areas in 

Recovery Unit 2 (Santa Rita MA, Empire Cienega MA, and Redrock-Sonoita Creek MA) as 

appropriate. 

Stormwater ponds were originally intended to be managed for Chiricahua leopard frogs as a 

conservation measure; however their management in such a manner is not consistent with the 

current recovery strategy for Chiricahua leopard frogs in Recovery Unit 2. The creation of 

stormwater ponds for the purpose of capturing precipitation runoff from the active mining area 
220

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

for subsequent evaporation is a necessary component of the projects stormwater permit. 

However, specifically managing these features for the purpose of creating and/or maintaining 

habitat for Chiricahua leopard frogs actually enhances the likelihood and magnitude for take of 

frogs by drawing them closer to active mining operations, thus becoming an attractive nuisance 

for regional metapopulations and at worst becoming a regional population sink. Therefore, 

Terms and Conditions 2 and 3 supersede the Conservation Measure that promotes the use of 

stormwater ponds by Chiricahua leopard frogs and instead requires that stormwater pond 

management focus on their primary objective of capturing runoff and evaporating water as 

quickly as possible. We also require that monitoring of these stormwater ponds occur during the 

summer monsoon when frogs are most-likely to make overland movements; any frogs found 

within the ponds will be relocated to sites under coordination with local recovery stakeholders. 

Because we understand that the presence of water on the landscape is an attractive and necessary 

element to the Chiricahua leopard frogs’ natural history, it is likely that over the life of the 

proposed action, an unknown number of dispersing adults could move into exposed process 

water where they would be likely to be injured or killed from toxic exposure. Process water 

ponds will, however, be enclosed, covered, or otherwise managed to protect wildlife, livestock, 

and public safety, thus minimizing, if not removing, this threat. 

Cumulative Effects - Chiricahua Leopard Frog 

Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, tribal, local or private actions that are 

reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this biological opinion. Future 

Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section 

because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act. 

Exceptions include continued road maintenance, grazing activities, and recreation in the action 

area, current and future development, other nearby mining projects, and unregulated activities on 

non-federal lands, such as trespass livestock, inappropriate use of off-highway vehicles (OHVs), 

and illegal introduction of nonnative aquatic species (e.g., bullfrogs, crayfish, and salamanders), 

which can cumulatively adversely affect the Chiricahua leopard frog and its designated critical 

habitat. Additional cumulative effects on Chiricahua leopard frogs include ongoing activities in 

the watersheds in which the species occurs such as livestock grazing and associated activities 

outside federal allotments, irrigated agriculture, groundwater pumping, stream diversion, bank 

stabilization, channelization, recreation without a federal nexus, and cross-border activities that 

include the following: human traffic; deposition of trash; new trails from human traffic; soil 

compaction and erosion; increased fire risk from human traffic; and water depletion and 

contamination. These impacts are somewhat attenuated by the relatively minor amount of nonFederal lands in the action area. 

Conclusion - Chiricahua Leopard Frog 

After reviewing the current status of the Chiricahua leopard frog, the environmental baseline for 

the action area, the effects of the proposed Rosemont Mine Project, and the cumulative effects, it 

is our biological opinion that the action, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued 
221

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

existence of the Chiricahua leopard frog nor adversely modify its designated critical habitat. We 

make this finding for the following reasons: 

1. The majority of the project activity likely associated with adverse effects from mine 

construction and operation is located on the northern-most edge of the recovery focus for 

the Santa Rita Management Area, and therefore, core metapopulation areas that have 

been the focus of recent recovery actions are spatially distant from the active mining area. 

This mitigates the likelihood for dispersing frogs to be present in the active mining area. 

2. Conservation benefits from the suite of proposed conservation measures, if properly 

implemented, are expected to outweigh the adverse effects of mine construction and 

operation, through the creation and improvement of habitat and management of nonnative 

species, provided that predominate forces such as potential drought from regional climate 

change have been adequately forecasted over the life of the project (see the climate 

change analyses in the BA and in this document’s Gila chub section). The most 

significant threats to Chiricahua leopard frogs in this area are drought (Santa Rita MA, 

Empire Cienega MA, and Redrock-Sonoita Creek MA), nonnative species (RedrockSonoita Creek MA), and Bd (Empire Cienega MA). Collectively, with the exception of 

the threat of Bd, the proposed conservation measures, with minor modifications, are 

likely to help secure the regional status of Chiricahua leopard frogs and enhance the 

achievement of recovery goals in this area. 

The conclusions of this biological opinion are based on full implementation of the project as 

described in the “Description of the Proposed Action” section of this document, including any 

Conservation Measures that were incorporated into the project design. 

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT - CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG 

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulations pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act prohibit the take 

of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. “Take” is 

defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt 

to engage in any such conduct. “Harm” is further defined (50 CFR 17.3) to include significant 

habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly 

impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. “Harass” is

defined in the regulations as ``an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the 

likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal 

behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 

CFR 17.3). “Incidental take” is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the 

carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 

7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered 

to be prohibited taking under the Act provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms 

and conditions of this Incidental Take Statement. 
222

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be undertaken by the USFS so 

that they become binding conditions of any grant or permit issued to the applicant, as 

appropriate, for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The USFS has a continuing duty to 

regulate the activity covered by this incidental take statement. If the USFS (1) fails to assume 

and implement the terms and conditions or (2) fails to require any applicant to adhere to the 

terms and conditions of the incidental take statement through enforceable terms that are added to 

the permit or grant document, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to 

monitor the impact of incidental take, the USFS must report the progress of the action and its 

impact on the species to the FWS as specified in the incidental take statement. [50 CFR 

402.14(i)(3)]. 

Amount or Extent of Take - Chiricahua Leopard Frog 

We anticipate that take of Chiricahua leopard frogs in the form of harm and harassment will 

occur at up to 6 known sites where the species is currently or formerly known, as a result of 

groundwater drawdown as reported in the Biological Assessment: Lower Stock Tank, Empire 

Gulch, Box Canyon Dam, Ophir Gulch Well, South Sycamore Canyon, Cienega Creek. As 

described in the BA, climate change models predict that over time, the southwest is likely to 

become hotter and drier, punctuated with more extreme drought (declines in winter precipitation) 

and intense flooding (summer precipitation). The Chiricahua leopard frog sites listed above are 

likely to respond differently over time to the effects of climate change and groundwater 

withdrawal. Some of these occupied or formally occupied sites have more recharge potential 

based upon the number or mechanism of recharge inputs (a stream or drainage with several 

tributaries versus a stock tank fed by ephemeral flow within a single drainage) and are more 

likely to persist longer under the stress of climate change and declining groundwater levels. 

Regardless of how these effects materialize, it is most likely that measurable dewatering effects 

will be most apparent in the latter half of the life of the project; when the radius of influence of 

groundwater decline intercepts recharge of these sites and when climate change effects may be 

more noticeable. We therefore predict that the most vulnerable sites will be lost to Chiricahua 

leopard frogs as suitable perennial habitat: Lower Stock Tank, Box Canyon Dam, Ophir Gulch 

Well, and South Sycamore Canyon. The proposed project area is generally located in the 

northernmost periphery of the core metapopulation area along the eastern bajada of the Santa 

Rita Mountains. 

We anticipate and authorize the take of up to and including 50 Chiricahua leopard frogs and 2 

egg masses in the form of harm or harassment from adverse effects associated with the mine 

construction and continued operations at the active mine site and access roads, including frogs’ 

occurrence in aquatic sites subject to groundwater drawdowns and stormwater detention ponds 

(see the Chiricahua leopard frog-specific Conservation Measures). This number is our 

conservative estimate of the total number of frogs that could be taken within the active mining 

footprint and associated road use – including stormwater ponds - over the life of the mine. 

Currently there is no occupied Chiricahua leopard frog habitat within the footprint of the 

proposed mine. Rosemont will survey for Chiricahua leopard frogs prior to construction which 

will reduce the potential for take. 
223

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

We are unable to anticipate the amount of take associated with indirect effects of potential 

contamination of prey species (winged insects) in the region because the data required to 

ascertain that figure are unavailable and not reasonably collected. However, we do not consider 

this form of take to be significant because winged insects that are heavily impacted by 

contamination are not likely to move appreciable distances and comprise a meaningful 

proportion of the region’s Chiricahua leopard frogs’ diet.

We anticipate a proportion of Chiricahua leopard frogs will be taken through the implementation 

of conservation measures, most likely from activities associated with capture, detainment, 

disease treatments, transportation, and release of frogs in all life stages. It is impractical to 

quantify actual numbers of individuals taken under these mechanisms and we are not going to 

limit this form of take because potential, short-term adverse effects are far less significant than 

the conservation value gained in recovery of the species in the area and because the net number 

of individuals potentially harmed is far exceeded by the number of individuals which are 

benefited or created by the implementation of these activities. 

In summary, and stated differently, the maximum allowable incidental take of the Chiricahua 

leopard frog is 50 individuals and two egg masses. 

Effect of the Take - Chiricahua Leopard Frog 

In this biological opinion, we determine that these levels of anticipated take are not likely to 

result in jeopardy to the species or result in adverse modification of its designated critical habitat 

for the reasons stated in the Conclusions section. 

Reasonable and Prudent Measures - Chiricahua Leopard Frog 

Reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions should minimize the effects of take, 

and provide monitoring and reporting requirements [50 CFR 402.14(i)(3)]. 

Chiricahua Leopard Frog 

The following reasonable and prudent measures are necessary and appropriate to minimize take 

of Chiricahua leopard frogs: 

1. Rosemont shall monitor the incidental take resulting from the proposed action and report the 

findings annually to our office. The report shall include the findings of the monitoring with 

regard to nonnative species (such as bullfrogs, crayfish, and warn water spiny-rayed fishes) and 

adaptive management actions. 

2. Rosemont shall ensure that necessary precautions are taken to minimize the potential for 

Chiricahua leopard frogs to become attracted to water features near the active mining 

area. 
224

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

3. Rosemont shall ensure that long-term, secure breeding populations of Chiricahua leopard 

frogs are created to act as source populations for use in future introductions of frogs into 

sites within the three affected Management Areas. 

Terms and Conditions - Chiricahua Leopard Frog 

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the USFS shall ensure that 

Rosemont complies with the following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable 

and prudent measures described above and outline required reporting/monitoring requirements. 

These terms and conditions are non-discretionary. 

Chiricahua Leopard Frog 

1. Rosemont shall monitor the action area to ascertain take of individuals and report to our 

office (written correspondence, e-mail, or phone call), information regarding: 

a. The observed occurrence or the discovery of harmful nonnatives such as 

American bullfrogs, crayfish, or warm-water, spiny-rayed fish species in 

any sites created inadvertently by or as a conservation measure for the 

proposed action to provide for collaborative emergency planning and 

corrective action (within three days of the observation). 

b. The results of any monitoring efforts conducted and a summary of any 

situations (and their corrective actions), that occurred during project 

implementation. Under an adaptive management framework, the report 

shall also make recommendations for modifying or refining potential, 

future conservation measures for implementation of similar projects which 

are likely to provide greater conservation benefit to Chiricahua leopard 

frogs. 

2. Rosemont shall monitor suitable habitat on National Forest System and Rosemont-owned 

land within one mile of the active operations area, including (but not limited to) roads, 

the utility corridor, and on-site stormwater ponds, twice monthly from July 1 through 

September 30, while the mine is in operation. The one-mile monitoring criterion is based 

on the species’ overland dispersal distance (see Status of the Species, above). If 

Chiricahua leopard frogs are detected on site or within a mile of the active operations 

area, they will be relocated to suitable habitat within the management area under close 

coordination with the local recovery group. This Term and Condition augments 

Conservation Measures 2 and G-3 (3.1-3.6) with respect to Chiricahua leopard frogs. 

3. Rosemont shall explore alternatives to traditional stormwater pond construction, 

operation, etc. in order to minimize water holding duration to the maximum extent 

practicable without compromising the primary function of the ponds; this is to reduce the 
225

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

creation and maintenance of habitat in the active operations area that could become an 

attractive nuisance for frogs. This Term and Condition replaces Conservation Measure 

G-7 for Chiricahua leopard frogs. 

4. Rosemont shall create small waters on the Sonoita Creek Ranch property and manage 

them as potential source populations of Chiricahua leopard frogs for future releases in the 

affected management areas. This will include renovation to remove harmful nonnative 

predators such as bullfrogs, crayfish, nonnative spiny-rayed fish and the construction and 

maintenance of frog barrier fencing, as necessary, to prevent bullfrogs from recolonizing 

these waters. Fencing gauge shall be chosen that will not entrap other small terrestrial 

vertebrates such as snakes, lizards, etc., such as 0.25” mesh size or smaller. Barrier 

fencing will be located in a manner to allow adequate terrestrial space for foraging or 

terrestrial habitat enhancements. Should future, unrelated conservation activities render 

Sonoita Creek free of bullfrogs, the barrier fencing could be removed to allow natural 

immigration and emigration from the site. Management of Chiricahua leopard frogs at 

this site shall be coordinated through the local recovery group. This Term and Condition 

augments Conservation Measure 6 with respect to Chiricahua leopard frog recovery 

activities on the Sonoita Creek Ranch. 

5. Rosemont shall coordinate with the local recovery group in the identification and location 

of the seven sites to be specifically dedicated for Chiricahua leopard frog conservation. 

These sites may or may not include particular sites referenced in the conservation 

measures of the Biological Assessment, may or may not be located on grazing allotments 

managed by Rosemont, but will be located on Coronado National Forest lands within the 

Santa Rita Management Area. To protect against the threat of prolonged drought, each of 

the seven tanks that will be improved for permeability and retention shall also have an 

artificial water source provided, such as a solar groundwater well, to ensure permanency 

of water at improved sites. Any water features that are created in addition to these seven 

sites that may affect the status of Chiricahua leopard frogs in the action area will be 

chosen in consultation with the local recovery group to facilitate avoiding incidental 

adverse effects or creating conservation opportunities. This Term and Condition 

augments or replaces several Conservation Measures proposed, including Conservation 

Measures 5 (5.1 – 5.3), G-4 (4.1-4.6), and G-5 (5.1-5.3). 

These reasonable and prudent measures, with their implementing terms and conditions, are 

designed to minimize incidental take that might otherwise result from the proposed action. If, 

during the course of the action, the level of incidental take is exceeded, such incidental take 

would represent new information requiring review of the reasonable and prudent measures 

provided. The Coronado Nation Forest must immediately provide an explanation of the causes 

of the taking and review with our office the need for possible modification of the reasonable and 

prudent measures. 
226

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Conservation Recommendations - Chiricahua Leopard Frog 

Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the 

purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and 

threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to 

minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to 

help implement recovery plans, or to develop information. 

1. We recommend that the Coronado National Forest implement Forest-specific actions 

within the Chiricahua Leopard Frog Recovery Plan (FWS 2007). 

2. We recommend the Coronado National Forest work with FWS and the other entities to 

continue to control nonnative aquatic organisms on the Forest, particularly bullfrogs, 

nonnative fish, and crayfish. We therefore encourage the Coronado National Forest to 

consider installing drains at each of the seven tanks that will be improved or created for 

use by Chiricahua leopard frogs described in Term and Condition 5. Drains can 

significantly assist resource managers in the management of harmful nonnative species 

such as bullfrogs in the event they colonize any one or more of the improved or created 

tanks. 

3. We recommend that the Coronado National Forest continue to identify factors that limit 

the recovery potential of Chiricahua leopard frogs on lands under their jurisdiction and 

work to correct them. 

In order for us to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or 

benefiting listed species or their habitats, we request notification of the implementation of any 

conservation recommendations. 

Effects to Aquatic Ecosystems

This section includes an analysis of the effects of the proposed action on fluvial aquatic 

ecosystems. The Gila chub and Gila topminnow occur in streams that are affected by the 

proposed action. The Huachuca water umbel is a semi-aquatic plant that occurs in and 

immediately adjacent to streams. The analyses contained herein will be incorporated via 

reference into the respective species’ analyses. These analyses also, in part, inform the 

respective action area descriptions for the affected species. 

The proposed action includes the excavation of an open pit to an elevation of approximately 

3,050 feet, a level that will intersect regional groundwater and/or water-conducting subsurface 

fracture networks (USFS 2011). Subsurface water will therefore “daylight” and fill the 

excavated area. The need to dewater the pit during active mining operations and the post-mining 

existence of a lake from which water will evaporate mean that the pit will function as a well from 

which regional groundwater is removed from storage in the regional aquifer and, eventually, 

captured from discharges to springs, streams, and evapotranspiration (ET, the uptake of 

groundwater by vegetation) (Leake et al. 2008).
227

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

The effects of groundwater withdrawal on surface waters of interest may be evaluated with a 

model calibrated to local conditions. Groundwater models were prepared by Montgomery and 

Associates (2010) and Tetra Tech (2010), the results of which were incorporated into the Draft 

EIS. The BA and supplemental documents include analyses of effects to surface waters based on 

the outcomes of the Montgomery and Associates (2010) and Tetra Tech (2010) models, as well 

as an independent model prepared by Myers (2010). The validity of the Montgomery and 

Associates (2010) and Tetra Tech (2010) models was later evaluated by SRK Consulting at the 

request of the Forest Service (SRK 2012). The Myers (2010) model was not subjected to review 

by SRK. 

Our review of DEIS comments submitted to the Coronado NF by the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) (Port 2012), Pima County (Pima County 2012), and Sonoran Institute (Propst 2012), 

indicated that there were substantial uncertainties regarding the magnitude and timing of 

groundwater drawdowns, particularly as those drawdowns relate to potential reductions in 

discharges to springs and streams. These uncertainties were explored at length, culminating in 

an October 18, 2012, meeting between the Forest Service, consulting hydrologists, the USGS, 

the BLM, the USEPA, and the FWS. The technical discussions concluded with general 

consensus as to the validity of the models applied to evaluate the effects of the proposed action 

(FS 2012a). 

Given the general agreement regarding the validity and utility of the Montgomery and Associates 

(2010) and Tetra Tech models, SWCA prepared a definitive impact analysis for seeps, springs, 

and riparian ecosystems for the Coronado NF and presented it to us on November 16, 2012 

(SWCA 2012). The Coronado NF subsequently adopted the SWCA analysis in the second 

Supplemental BA (FS 2013a). These analyses are incorporated herein via reference. 

We note that the models were based on the assumption that the local groundwater system exists 

as a porous media, rather than a system of individual fractures. The various hydrogeologic units 

were assigned different properties, such as hydraulic conductivity (the ease by which water can 

move through the material) and specific storage (which refers to the amount of water an aquifer 

can release from storage during changes in hydraulic head). There is a possibility that some 

portion of the regional groundwater is conducted through subterranean fractures and/or faults in 

the lithology in the project area, though we note that karst (limestone prone to formation of 

dissolution channels capable of relatively rapid groundwater movement) is unlikely to be present 

in or near the to-be-excavated area (USFS 2013b, SRK 2012). Knight (1996) described evidence 

of groundwater flow through fractures. If such a flow system is an appreciable component of the 

hydrogeology at and near the mine pit, or if mining results in loss of subterranean buoyant 

forces, new fractures could form. If such new fractures are localized, the flow of groundwater 

through them would still be encompassed by the existing flow models. If new fractures are of a 

scale that the groundwater flow system is fundamentally altered, the models’ results may require 

reexamination. 

Furthermore, it is not definitively known if or to what extent spring and stream baseflows are the 

result of discharges from: (1) the regional aquifer, which is affected by the proposed action; (2) a 
228

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

geologically-isolated groundwater system, isolated from the effects of the action; or (3) a 

combination of these two sources. Also note that our use of the term baseflow refers only to the 

water discharged from the regional or local aquifer to a spring, stream or waterbody, or to 

riparian vegetation (in the form of evapotranspiration). The regional aquifer is understood to 

consist of the interconnected fractures and hydrogeologic units that contain the groundwater 

encountered throughout the larger Rosemont area. Local aquifers may consist of alluvial 

sediments, areas of perched groundwater, or smaller areas of fractures that are not regionally 

connected but still may contain groundwater. 

Lastly, we are aware of the cautionary narrative in Leake (2011), which stated that capture of 

groundwater destined for discharge to streams or riparian ET does not depend on rates and 

directions of groundwater flow. Leake (2011) further stated that: (1) capture can occur in stream 

reaches both up- and downgradient of pumping locations [see also Cosgrove and Johnson 

(2005)]; (2) capture is not limited to the fraction of base flow that originates in the pumped area, 

even in streams with base flow derived from groundwater discharge; (3) capture still occurs even 

if a groundwater divide exists between the pumping location and the river or stream; (4) nonpumping transient events, such as episodic recharge from connected streams, do not affect 

capture; and (5) the geochemical signature of surface water, if different from the groundwater 

signature, is not necessarily an indication that pumping from a particular location does not affect 

that surface water. These precepts, in part, form the basis for our precautionary approach 

regarding the reductions of mountain front recharge (see Gardner Canyon and Empire Gulch 

analyses, specifically). 

The natural hydrologic system to which the models have been applied also exhibits a relatively 

large degree of variation under current conditions. This background variation is unaffected by 

the proposed action but does experience impacts from both natural, climatic variation and 

existing water withdrawals. The hydrologic summary compiled by SWCA and transmitted by 

the Forest Service (SWCA 2012), includes the following statements regarding fluctuations in 

depth to groundwater in the area of interest: 

• In a well in lower Davidson Canyon, groundwater levels have been observed to fluctuate 

by more than 10 feet in a single year. 

• Two stock wells along Empire Gulch have been monitored by the Arizona Department of 

Water Resources for three to four decades, and the results show that water levels have 

varied between 4 to 4.5 feet. 

• Similar stock wells along Cienega Creek show variation between 3 and 4 feet. 

• Two wells immediately adjacent to lower Cienega Creek were monitored between 2007 

and 2009 by the Pima Association of Governments and exhibited a fluctuation in water 

level of up to 5 feet seasonally. 

• Montgomery and Associates (2010) conducted a similar analysis on a much greater 

number of wells located throughout the basin (not just near streams) and found that the 

average short-term fluctuation in groundwater levels was 7.1 feet and that the long-term 

fluctuation in groundwater levels was 19.7 feet. 
229

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

It is important to note that the estimated groundwater drawdowns resulting from implementation 

of the proposed action will be in addition to the natural and anthropogenic variation noted above, 

and would be additive to (not masked by) any negative baseline effects (or offset by positive 

effects) already extant (or reasonably certain to occur), as well as the effects of cumulative 

(future, non-Federal, and within the action area) actions. Please see the climate change 

discussion appearing in the BA, this BO’s Gila chub Status of the Species section, and to the 

same species’ Cumulative Effects analysis for additional information.

Despite the inherent uncertainties in the hydrologic system and the groundwater modeling data 

derived from analyses of that system, we are aware of no other existing model results or 

empirical data that would more accurately inform our analyses. The existing groundwater 

models therefore represent the best available information with which we can analyze the 

groundwater-related effects of the proposed action. 

The action area is drained by ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial watercourses that flow 

primarily in a northeasterly direction from high-elevation ridges on the eastern flank of the Santa 

Rita Mountains through foothills toward larger drainages located at lower elevations on the basin 

floor. Ephemeral refers to streams or portions of a stream that flow briefly in direct response to 

precipitation, and whose channel is at all times above the groundwater reservoir. Intermittent 

refers to a stream where portions flow continuously only at certain times of the year, for example 

when it receives water from a spring, groundwater source, or from a surface source such as 

melting snow (i.e., seasonal). At low flow, an intermittent stream may exhibit dry reaches 

alternating with flowing reaches. Perennial refers to a stream or portion of a stream that flows 

year-round and is considered a permanent stream, and for which base flow is maintained by 

groundwater discharge to the streambed. Discharge to the streambed from groundwater would 

be due to the groundwater elevation adjacent to the stream typically being higher than the 

elevation of the streambed, though artesian conditions can also support perennial streams. 

Four major drainages occur in the primary area of disturbance: Wasp, McCleary, Scholefield, 

and Barrel Canyons. Scholefield, Wasp, and McCleary Canyons drain to Barrel Canyon, which 

then joins Davidson Canyon approximately 4 miles east of the project area. Davidson Canyon 

wash flows northwesterly between the Empire and Santa Rita Mountains into Cienega Creek, 

which eventually enters Pantano Wash outside of the action area. The distance from the 

confluence of Barrel and Davidson Canyons to the outlet of Davidson Canyon at Cienega Creek 

is approximately 14 miles. Drainage from these systems eventually reaches the Santa Cruz River 

north of Tucson. 
230

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Figure A-1: Surface hydrology of the actions area (SWCA 2012) 
231

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Table A-1: Narrative descriptions of stream reaches adapted from SWCA (2012) and BLM (2013)

Reach Location Flow Regime

Cienega Creek 1 From headwaters to confluence with 

Gardner Canyon Perennial

Cienega Creek 2 From confluence of Gardner Canyon to the 

Narrows

Spatially intermittent; some perennial reaches; contains 

U.S. Geological Survey gage no. 09484550

Cienega Creek 3 The Narrows Spatially intermittent; some perennial reaches

Cienega Creek 4 From the Narrows to confluence with 

Davidson Canyon

Spatially intermittent; some perennial reaches; contains 

U.S. Geological Survey gage no. 09484560

Cienega Creek 5 From confluence with Davidson Canyon to 

Pantano Dam Spatially intermittent; some perennial reaches

Cinco Wetlands Located in Cienega Creek floodplain east of 

Gardner Canyon Perennial Interior Marshland

Spring Water 

Wetland

Cienega Creek floodplain downstream of 

Spring Water Canyon confluence Perennial Interior Marshland

Multiple Unnamed 

Wetlands

Cienega Creek floodplain between Spring 

Water and Gardner canyons Perennial and Seasonal Interior Marshland

Gardner Canyon 1 Upper Gardner Canyon Ephemeral

Gardner Canyon 2 Lower Gardner Canyon Ephemeral

Empire Gulch From headwaters to confluence with 

Cienega Creek Spatially intermittent; some perennial reaches

Cieneguita Wetland 

Complex Floodplain in lower Empire Gulch Perennial Interior Marshland

Cienega Ranch 

Wetland

Cienega Creek floodplain west of Empire 

Gulch Perennial Interior Marshland

Cold Water Spring Large spring located upstream of Mattie 

Canyon confluence Perennial

Cold Water Wetland Large wetland associated with Cold Water 

Spring Perennial

Mattie Canyon Tributary to Cienega Creek Interrupted Perennial

Davidson Canyon 1 From headwaters to confluence with Barrel 

Canyon Ephemeral

Davidson Canyon 2 From Barrel Canyon to Davidson Spring Ephemeral

Davidson Canyon 3 From Davidson Spring to Reach 2 Spring Ephemeral

Davidson Canyon 4 From Reach 2 Spring to confluence with 

Cienega Creek

Has been intermittent or perennial in the past; recently has 

been intermittent; contains U.S. Geological Survey gage 

no. 09484590

Barrel Canyon 1 From mine site to State Route 83 Ephemeral; contains U.S. Geological Survey gage no. 

09484580

Barrel Canyon 2 From State Route 83 to confluence with 

Davidson Canyon Ephemeral

Watershed Overview 

The action area encompasses a large proportion of the greater Cienega Creek watershed. The 

Whetstone and Mustang Mountains form the eastern watershed boundary, the Canelo Hills form 

the southern boundary, and the eastern and northern Santa Rita and eastern face of the Empire 

mountains bound the western portion of the Cienega Creek watershed. Gardner Canyon and 

Empire Gulch are the largest tributaries to the upper reaches of Cienega Creek, and enter the 

stream south of the Empire Mountains. Mattie Canyon originates in the Whetstone Mountains 

and enters Cienega Creek downstream of the Empire Gulch confluence. Downstream from these 

three tributaries, Cienega Creek enters the narrows, a confined, bedrock-dominated reach in 
232

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

which alluvial and other sources of shallow groundwater are forced to the surface to contribute to 

discharges in the stream. Barrel Canyon and Davidson Canyon Wash arise in the Santa Rita 

Mountains and flow south along the western flanks of the Empire Mountains to join Cienega 

Creek well downstream of the narrows, south of Interstate 10. 

The proposed mine will be situated within a portion of the watershed of Cienega Creek. Barrel 

Canyon watershed is the largest of the four major drainages that occur in the primary area of 

disturbance. Two sub-watersheds, Upper and Lower Barrel, total more than 2,300 acres and 

combine to make Barrel Canyon proper. Barrel Canyon is the largest of the watersheds affected 

by surface disturbance, extending almost 4 miles from its headwaters to its confluence with East 

Canyon; the average sandy-bottom channel width for washes in Barrel Canyon is estimated to be 

51 feet. For comparison purposes, average wash widths in Wasp, McCleary, and Scholefield 

Canyons are approximately 38, 29, and 27 feet, respectively. 

Somewhat smaller portions of additional watersheds occur within the perimeter fence. These 

watersheds include Oak Tree Canyon, Empire Gulch, and East Canyon. East, and Oak Tree 

Canyons are located east of the mine and drain east to join Cienega Creek. Empire Gulch is 

located southeast of the mine and also drains east to join Cienega Creek. Much of the land 

between the perimeter and security fences will remain undisturbed, though the primary access 

road, rerouted portion of the Arizona Trail, decommissioning of Forest Service Roads and 

secondary access road and utility ROW construction will result in effects to the Barrel canyon, 

East Canon, McCleary Canyon, and Wasp Canyon watersheds. 

Groundwater and Surface Water Effects 

The Montgomery and Associates (2010) and Tetra Tech (2010) models have variously predicted 

drawdowns greater than 100 feet in the immediate vicinity of the site; drawdowns of lesser 

magnitude are modeled to occur to the north along Davidson Canyon, to the east toward Cienega 

Creek, and to the south toward Empire Gulch. Specific drawdown estimates vary between 

models. The groundwater modeling by Montgomery and Associates (2010) and Tetra Tech 

(2010) involved creation of a number of scenarios, each scenario using different modeling 

parameters. Each individual parameter was varied within a reasonable range of values. This 

suite of modeling scenarios is known as the sensitivity analysis. Out of the suite of modeling 

scenarios, only one is considered the “best-fit”, or baseline, modeling scenario. The range of 

predicted drawdown from the rest of the modeling scenarios, however, are still considered 

possible or reasonable, just not as likely to occur. 

 

The ability for groundwater models to accurately predict the propagation of drawdown away 

from the pit is limited due to the asymptotic nature (mathematical leveling-off) of the response to 

groundwater withdrawals at large distances and times (SRK 2012). The difficulty in employing 

groundwater models to predict changes over large temporal and spatial scales (here, at up to 

1,000 years and over 10 miles) is further increased if the groundwater system of interest exists 

within geologic formations of low permeability, as exists in the hard rock-dominated lithology at 

and near the mine site (SRK 2012, FS 2011). For these reasons, SRK (2012) estimated that the 

Montgomery and Associates (2010) and Tetra Tech (2010) models can reliably predict 
233

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

groundwater drawdowns of 5 feet or greater; changes of less magnitude have lower confidence 

(SRK 2012). It is unclear to us how modeled drawdowns of greater than five feet, but with 

increments of less than that amount, are inherently more reliable than incremental changes that 

do not meet the 5-foot threshold. We will therefore analyze the effects of all modeled 

drawdowns, and the effects that may result from those drawdowns, regardless of their magnitude. 

Of the groundwater drawdowns predicted by Myers (2010), Montgomery and Associates (2010), 

and Tetra Tech (2010), the latter appear to be the most immediate and severe (see Table A-5). 

We feel that by emphasizing the results of the Tetra Tech (2010) model, our analyses will 

characterize the most conservative (i.e. maximum potential effect) levels of effects. 

The values appearing in Table A-5 represent modeled drawdowns at location and time intervals 

of interest (SWCA 2012), but the models can also be employed to predict drawdowns at any 

location within the modeled domain and at any point in time (USGS 1997), such as at locations 

where monitoring wells have or will be placed. Also note that Table A-5 includes the results of 

sensitivity analyses performed during the development of the Montgomery and Associates 

(2010) and Tetra Tech (2010) groundwater models. In this BO, we have included the results of 

these sensitivity analyses to portray the range of values surrounding the predicted groundwater 

drawdowns that appear in Table A-5, and which, in part, form the basis of subsequent biological 

effects analyses. 

The proposed action’s effects to surface flows and groundwater occur in the southern and 

western portions of the greater Cienega Creek watershed. As stated previously, Gardner Canyon 

and Empire Gulch are tributaries to the upstream reaches of Cienega Creek. Barrel Canyon is a 

tributary to Davidson Canyon Wash which, in turn, is also a tributary to Cienega Creek. The 

effects to Barrel Canyon, Davidson Canyon Wash, Gardner Canyon, Empire Gulch and the 

upstream reaches of Cienega Creek represent incremental, additive effects to the lowermost 

reaches of Cienega Creek. 

The stream-by-stream and reach-by-reach analyses that follow are arranged such that the 

uppermost portions of the watershed (Gardner Canyon, Empire Gulch, and upper Cienega Creek) 

appear first. The analyses then shift to Barrel Canyon and Davidson Canyon Wash, to which the 

former is the main, affected tributary. The individual analyses conclude with Lower Cienega 

Creek. 

In addition to appearing in Table A-5, the Tetra Tech (2010) groundwater model-based analyses 

are employed in the stream- and reach-scale analyses, below as well as in the Effects to Riparian 

Ecosystems section, and in the respective effects analyses for Gila chub, Gila topminnow, 

Huachuca water umbel, and southwestern willow flycatcher. We again note that while the 

effects analyses contain reference to modeled, best-fit drawdown values, we have considered that 

those values are bracketed by the results of sensitivity analyses. Moreover, while it is possible, if 

not probable, that the actual, observed drawdowns will be less or greater than the modeled, bestfit values, our effects analyses conservatively consider only the possibility that the best-fit 

drawdown values will be exceeded, reaching the higher value noted in the sensitivity analysis. 

Subsequent tables and narratives will thus include only the higher values resulting from the 
234

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

sesnsitivity analyses. If a larger, sensitivity analysis-derived drawdown is not referenced, it 

means that the best-fit value is equal to the highest value that resulted from the analysis. 

Gardner Canyon 

Gardner Canyon is anticipated to experience regional aquifer drawdowns of < 0.1 foot from the 

cessation of mining until 50 years later (or up to 0.15 foot at 50 years) (see Gardner/Cienega 

Confluence data in Table A-5). At 150 years after mining, the effect to Gardner Canyon 

increases to 0.2 foot (or, based on sensitivity analysis, up to 0.35 foot) and reaches 0.5 foot at 

1,000 years. 

We are concerned with the effects to mountain front recharge by the mine pit, though the 

ultimate fate of all sources of recharge differs between the Montgomery and Associates (2010) 

and Tetra Tech (2010) models. Mountain front recharge is water that originates as precipitation 

and which enters the regional aquifer via infiltration in uplands and channels. Huth (1996, as 

cited in Knight 1997) found that approximately 70 percent of the annual recharge in Cienega 

Creek originates from the Santa Rita Mountains, with the majority of that subsurface flow 

travelling down the Gardner Canyon corridor. 

The Coronado National Forest reviewed a preliminary, administrative draft version of this 

section (USFS 2013b), wherein comments regarding alterations in recharge were provided. 

Tetra Tech (2010) predicts an increase in recharge because of the draining down of water from 

the tailings, and because of the flow-through drains would result in infiltration instead of runoff. 

This draining down of imported water may be appreciable; the proposed action will import over 

5,000 acre-feet of water for application within the site (USFS 2013). Montgomery and 

Associates (2010) predicted a slight decrease in recharge post-closure (USFS 2013c).

For the purposes of NEPA analysis, the Coronado National Forest has assumed that the water 

that gets captured by the pit either as rainfall or runoff is a loss to mountain front recharge (USFS 

2013). All other water not captured by the pit may become mountain front recharge either by 

infiltrating into fractures within the mine site and/or infiltrating into alluvial channels. The 

review comments indicated that there will be an estimated loss of approximately 35 to 127 acrefeet of recharge (USFS 2013c), which we presume is apportioned among all streams with 

headwaters and recharge zones close to areas appreciably affected by the pit. Regardless, such 

reductions in recharge were explicitly modeled by Tetra Tech (2010) and Montgomery and 

Associates (2010). 

Empire Gulch 

The proposed action will affect the subsurface and, eventually, the surface hydrology of Empire 

Gulch at the Upper Empire Gulch Springs site (see Upper Empire Gulch Springs data in Table 

A-5). Tetra Tech (2010) modeled the effects at this site to range from 0.1 foot (or up to 0.2 foot) 

of groundwater drawdown upon cessation of mining to 0.2 foot (or up to 0.5 foot) at 20 years, 

0.5 (up to 1.8 foot) foot at 50 years, 2.5 feet (up to 5.0 foot) at 150 years, and 6 feet at 1,000 

years. 
235

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Empire Gulch is a spring-fed system (Bodner and Simms 2008) and is thus vulnerable to 

alterations in the groundwater conditions that sustain the spring discharges. The appreciable 

groundwater drawdowns discussed above will likely diminish surface flows in the stream. 

Also, while Huth (1996; a pers. comm. cited in Knight 1997) stated that approximately 70 

percent of the annual recharge in Cienega Creek originates from the Santa Rita Mountains and 

flows down the Gardner Canyon corridor, it is reasonable to presume some smaller fraction of 

the Santa Rita Mountain front recharge travels down the Empire Gulch flow path. This would 

correspond to some portion of the estimated, potential 35 to 127 acre-feet mountain front 

recharge captured by the drawdown associated with the pit. 
236

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Figure A-2: Modeled groundwater drawdown contours
237

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Upper Cienega Creek 

Upper Cienega Creek is that portion of the stream in Reaches 1, 2, and 3 (the latter includes the 

narrows) (see Figure A-1). Gardner Canyon and Empire Gulch, along with Mattie Canyon are 

the major tributaries in this reach. 

The USGS Cienega Creek stream gage (0948550) is situated near the narrows in the upstream 

portion of Reach 3 (see Figure A-1). Regional groundwater drawdowns at this site describe the 

effects to upper Cienega Creek. Tetra Tech (2010) modeled drawdowns of <0.1 foot from the 

end of mining and at 20, and 50 years later (or up to 0.15 foot at 50 years). Drawdowns reach 

0.25 feet (or up to 0.35 foot) and 0.5 feet at 150 and 1,000 years, respectively . 

Table 7 in Montgomery and Associates (2010) is a summary of various hydrologic and 

environmental effects resulting from the modeled drawdowns. Table A-2, below, excerpts the 

hydrologic effects analysis for upper Cienega Creek, including the narrows. The effects don’t 

manifest until 1,000 years after the cessation of mining, but they become appreciable at that time. 

Table A-2: Summary of Effects to Upper Cienega Creek, including the Narrows

Years after 

mining

Drawdown at 

perennial reach (feet)

Decrease in stream 

length (miles)

Decrease in 

baseflow (cfs)

Decrease in ET 

(afa)

0 0 0 0 0

20 0 0 0 0

150 0 0 0 0

1,000 0.01 0.16 0.02 51

Barrel Canyon 

Barrel Canyon is proximal to the mine site. The primary effect of the proposed action on this 

stream is the reduced runoff that will result from the placement of mine tailings in its upper 

watershed and the retention of stormwater within the mine site, as opposed to the aquifer 

drawdowns that will occur deep beneath the stream bed (the ephemeral channel in this area does 

not receive discharge from the regional aquifer). SWCA (2012) included an estimate that 

ephemeral surface runoff in Barrel Canyon, under post-closure conditions, will be reduced 

approximately 17.2 percent. Greater effects – up to a 30 to 40 percent reduction in runoff- will 

occur during the first 10 years of mine construction (SWCA 2012), before concurrent 

reclamation activities that allow more water to move downstream are implemented. 

The Coronado National Forest’s review of the preliminary, administrative draft version of this 

section (USFS 2013) indicated that the placement of tailings in Barrel Canyon may have 

differing effects to mountain front recharge. As designed, the tailings lack flow-through drains, 

which would decreases the Tetra Tech (2010) model’s potential for recharge within the mine site 

boundary. The Barrel alternative also lacks post-closure storage of water on site, which also 

decreases the potential for recharge within the mine site boundary. On the other hand, the Barrel 

alternative also moves more water downstream into ephemeral channels, within which mountain 

front recharge may be increased. 
238

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Davidson Canyon Wash 

The uppermost reaches of Davidson Canyon Wash (Reaches 1 and 2) (see Figure A-1) are 

situated relatively close to the proposed mine pit and are situated in an area that will experience 

severe drawdowns (10 to 100 feet) in the regional aquifer; however, the primary water source in 

this area is precipitation runoff rather than regional aquifer discharge. These local sources of 

runoff will be unaffected and thus, the groundwater hydrology of Reaches 1 and 2 are not 

anticipated to be affected; Tetra Tech (2010) predicted drawdowns of <0.1 foot from the 

cessation of mining to 1,000 years. 

Reaches 3 and 4 of Davidson Canyon Wash (see Figure A-1) may also be relatively unaffected 

by groundwater drawdowns. Tetra Tech predicted groundwater drawdowns in Davidson Canyon 

Wash at the downstream end of Reach 4 (see the Davidson/Cienega Confluence data in Table A5) of <0.1 foot from 0 to 150 years after mining and 0.1 foot at 1,000 years (or up to 0.15 foot at 

20 years, and 0.2 foot at both 50 and 150 years). These results assume a complete hydrologic 

connection between the regional aquifer and surface flows in the stream exists. However, when 

non-stormwater surface flows in Davidson Canyon Wash are present, they receive contributions 

from discharges at Reach 2 Spring and Escondido Spring (see Figure A-1). Tetra Tech (2010b) 

conducted an analysis, and based on geologic evidence, isotopic signatures in the springs, and 

the lack of consistent streamflow concluded that these springs likely derive their water from 

precipitation runoff-driven, ephemeral storm flows stored in the shallow alluvial stream 

sediments, which are then forced to the surface by bedrock constrictions in the stream channel. 

SRK conducted additional analyses (2012) and concluded that while some of the available 

evidence was anecdotal and less than certain, the available information also suggested that there 

is no connection between the Davidson Canyon springs and the regional aquifer. If surface flows 

in Davidson Canyon Wash are indeed derived from sources completely separate from the 

regional aquifer, then drawdowns caused by the proposed action could be of an even lower 

magnitude than those noted above. 

Davidson Canyon Wash will, however, experience appreciable effects to its annual yield and 

peak flows. The stream’s upper watershed will be subject to altered surface water runoff patterns 

due to the aforementioned placement of tailings and stormwater retention in the Davidson 

Canyon Wash tributary Barrel Canyon and retention of stormwater within the mine site. SWCA 

(2012), referencing Tetra Tech (2010) states that surface water runoff modeling on Barrel 

Canyon at Highway 83 indicated a post-closure runoff decrease (in acre-feet per annum) of 

approximately 17.2 percent under the proposed action. SWCA further extrapolates that this 

would equate to a 4.3 percent reduction of runoff (in acre-feet per annum) 12 miles downstream 

in the lower reaches of Davidson Canyon Wash. Modeled peak flow reductions (in cubic feet 

per second) are 22 percent at the Highway 83 Bridge, which extrapolates to 5.6 percent in 

Davidson Canyon Wash. Ephemeral channels (such as the upper and middle reaches of 

Davidson Canyon Wash (Reaches 1 and 2) can be characterized by stream flow losses (SWCA 

2012), but the fate of surface waters that infiltrate into channel sediments varies. Some of the 

infiltrated runoff will be discharged to riparian vegetation via evapotranspiration, but some may 

remain in the sediment as subflow. 
239

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

The lowermost reaches of Davidson Canyon Wash (Reaches 2, 3, and 4; see Figure A-1) will 

experience decreases in runoff volume. SWCA (2012) extrapolated the modeled 4.3 percent 

reduction in runoff to Cienega Creek reaches 3 and 4 and anticipated that it would have minimal 

effects to surface flows and riparian vegetation (as had been noted for reaches 1 and 2, above). 

Lower Cienega Creek 

Lower Cienega Creek extends from the narrows (Reach 3) to the Del Lago Diversion Dam, at 

which point the stream is referred to as Pantano Wash. Reach 4 is between the narrows and the 

Davidson Canyon Wash confluence while Reach 5 is downstream of the confluence (see Figure 

A-1). Tetra Tech (2010) modeled groundwater drawdowns of <0.1 foot at the USGS stream 

gage in Reach 5 (gage number 09484560) for all time steps from the cessation of mining to 1,000 

years; this is to be expected at such a relatively large distance from the mine pit. 

SWCA (2012), using data from the groundwater models and Pima County (Pima Association of 

Governments 2003b) has estimated that the anticipated reductions in Davidson Canyon Wash 

surface flow (and thus, subflow) are therefore anticipated, via extrapolation, to result in a 4.3 

percent reduction in Cienega Creek subflow (SWCA 2012). This measurable reduction in 

subflow, in combination with other surface flow (both in yield and peak flow magnitude) 

reductions upstream (see Gardner Canyon, Empire Gulch, and Cienega Creek sections, above), 

the influence of climate change on baseline conditions over time, and the effects of cumulative 

actions, is likely to have detrimental effects to aquatic ecosystems in lowermost Cienega Creek. 

As discussed above, Table 7 in Montgomery (2010) summarizes various hydrologic and 

environmental effects resulting from groundwater drawdowns. Table A-3, below, excerpts the 

Table 7 hydrologic effects analysis for Davidson Canyon Wash and lower Cienega Creek. 

Effects begin to appear 20 years after the conclusion of mining and become appreciable at 1,000 

years. We note that Montgomery (2010) has predicted groundwater drawdowns of 0.31 foot at 

20 years and 0.98 foot at 1,000 years, whereas Tetra Tech (2010) modeled drawdowns no greater

than 0.1 foot at the same time steps. 

Table A-3: Summary of Effects to Davidson Canyon Wash (based on Montgomery and Associates 2010)

Years after 

mining

Drawdown at 

perennial reach (feet)

Decrease in stream 

length (miles)

Decrease in 

baseflow (cfs)

Decrease in ET 

(afa)

0 0 0 0 0

20 0.01 0 0.01 0

150 0.31 0 0.02 8

1,000 0.98 0.29 0.04 22

Summary of Effects to Aquatic Ecosystems 

The analyses, above, describe incremental changes to the groundwater and surface water systems 

that sustain a series of streams and their associated aquatic and riparian ecosystems. The effects 

of flow reductions will be in addition to any similar effects that result from changing baseline 

conditions (primarily ongoing drought and the future impacts of climate change) and the effects 
240

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

of future, non-Federal cumulative actions in the area (primarily, groundwater withdrawal not 

associated with the proposed action). Table A-4, below, summarizes the proposed action’s 

effects to streams. 

Table A-4: Summary of effects to streams (based on Tetra Tech 2010 and SWCA 2012)

Stream

Drawdown (feet) with upper 

bounds of sensitivity analyses in 

parentheses (Tetra Tech 2010)

Primary Effects

150 years 1,000 years

Gardner Canyon 0.2

(0.35)

0.5

(Same) Modest drawdown, potential reduction in mountain front recahrge

Empire Gulch 2.5

(5.0)

6.0

(Same)

Appreciable drawdown, reduced flows and stream length, potential reduction 

in mountain front recharge

Upper Cienega Creek 0.25

(0.35)

0.5

(Same)

Modest drawdown, reduced flows and stream length, potential reduction in 

mountain front recharge

Barrel Canyon Isolated from regional aquifer

Reduced runoff from placement of tailings in channel, potential reduction in 

mountain front recharge

Davidson Canyon Wash Reduced flows due to tributary impacts in Barrel canyon, above

Lower Cienega Creek <0.1

(Same)

<0.1

(Same) Minimal drawdown

Table A-5: Modeled groundwater drawdowns at key locations (adapted from SWCA 2012). Results in parenthese

for Montgomery and Associates (2010) and Tetra Tech (2010) represent the range of drawdowns from sensitivity 

analyses (not the magnitude of variation from the stated, best-fit value). The term “same” means that the modeled 

drawdown at that location was not sensitive to alterations in the model’s input parameters.

End of active mining

Location Montgomery (2010) Tetra Tech (2010) Myers (2010)

Gardner/Cienega Confluence <0.1

(Same)

<0.1

(Same) 0

Upper Empire Gulch Springs <0.1

(Same)

0.1

(<0.1 - 0.2) 0

Cienega near stream gage 

09484550 (perennial reach)

<0.1

(Same)

<0.1

(Same) 0

Davidson/Cienega Confluence <0.1

(Same)

<0.1

(Same) Outside of model domain

Cienega near stream gage 

09484560 (intermittent reach)

<0.1

(Same)

<0.1

(Same) 0

20 years after mine closure

Location Montgomery (2010) Tetra Tech (2010) Myers (2010)

Gardner/Cienega Confluence <0.1

(Same)

<0.1

(Same) 0

Upper Empire Gulch Springs <0.1

(<0.1 - 0.1)

0.2

(<0.1 - 0.5) 0

Cienega near stream gage 

09484550 (perennial reach)

<0.1

(Same)

<0.1

(Same) 0

Davidson/Cienega Confluence <0.1

(Same)

<0.1

(<0.1 - 0.15) Outside of model domain

Cienega near stream gage 

09484560 (intermittent reach)

<0.1

(Same)

<0.1

(Same) 0

50 years after mine closure

Location Montgomery (2010) Tetra Tech (2010) Myers (2010)

Gardner/Cienega Confluence <0.1

(<0.1 - 0.1)

<0.1

(<0.1 - 0.15) 0

Upper Empire Gulch Springs <0.1

(<0.1 - 0.5)

0.5

(<0.1 - 1.8) 0.2
241

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Cienega near stream gage 

09484550 (perennial reach)

<0.1

(Same)

<0.1

(<0.1 - 0.15) 0

Davidson/Cienega Confluence <0.1

(Same)

<0.1

(<0.1 - 0.2) Outside of model domain

Cienega near stream gage 

09484560 (intermittent reach)

<0.1

(Same)

<0.1

(Same) 0

150 years after mine closure

Location Montgomery (2010) Tetra Tech (2010) Myers (2010)

Gardner/Cienega Confluence <0.1

(<0.1 – 0.4)

0.2

(<0.1 – 0.35) 0.1

Upper Empire Gulch Springs 0.3

(0.1 – 1.4)

2.5

(0.5 – 5.0) 0.3

Cienega near stream gage 

09484550 (perennial reach)

<0.1

(Same)

0.25

(<0.1 – 0.35) 0

Davidson/Cienega Confluence <0.1

(Same)

<0.1

(<0.1 – 0.2) Outside of model domain

Cienega near stream gage 

09484560 (intermittent reach)

<0.1

(Same)

<0.1

(Same) 0

1,000 years after mine closure

Location Montgomery (2010) Tetra Tech (2010) Myers (2010)

Gardner/Cienega Confluence <0.1

(<0.1 – 0.8)

0.5

(0.3 – 0.5) 2.2

Upper Empire Gulch Springs 3.3

(2.3 – 5.0)

6

(4.4 – 6.0) 4.3

Cienega near stream gage 

09484550 (perennial reach)

<0.1

(Same)

0.5

(0.4 – 0.5) 0.2

Davidson/Cienega Confluence <0.1

(Same)

0.1

(Same) Outside of model domain

Cienega near stream gage 

09484560 (intermittent reach)

<0.1

(Same)

<0.1

(Same) 0.3
242

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Status of the Species – Gila Chub 

Gila chub (Gila intermedia) was listed as endangered with critical habitat on November 11, 2005 

(70 FR 51985). The final rule cites collection records, historical habitat data, the 1996 AGFD 

Gila chub status review (Weedman et al. 1996), and USFWS information documenting currently 

occupied habitat to conclude that Gila chub has been eliminated from 85 to 90 percent of 

formerly occupied habitat. It was also estimated that 90 percent of the currently occupied habitat 

is degraded due to the presence of nonnative species and land management actions. Due to 

fragmented and often small population sizes, extant populations are susceptible to environmental 

conditions such as drought, flood events, and wildfire. Primary threats to Gila chub such as 

predation by and competition with nonnative organisms and secondary threats identified as 

habitat alteration, destruction, and fragmentation are all factors identified in the final rule that 

contribute to the consideration that Gila chub is likely to become extinct throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range (70 FR 66664). 

Background 

Gila chub is a member of the roundtail chub (Gila robusta) complex that also includes headwater 

chub (G. nigra). The roundtail chub complex has had a turbulent and controversial taxonomic 

history that includes an assortment of classification schemes. Much of the debate has centered 

on whether the complex represents a number of nominal species or subspecies of Gila robusta. 

A nomenclatorial synonymy for Gila chub can be found in Minckley (1973). 

Gila chub has long been recognized as distinct. Miller (1945), following the arrangement of 

Jordan and Evermann (1896), supported full generic rank for the genus Gila (Baird and Girard) 

with a “Gila robusta complex” that included Gila chub. Miller (1946) considered Gila chub to 

be an “ecological subspecies” of G. robusta (i.e., G. r. intermedia) characteristic of the small 

tributaries they inhabit. Rinne (1969, 1976), using univariate analyses of morphological and 

meristic characters, argued for recognition of both G. robusta and G. intermedia as distinct 

species and against the ecological subspecies concept. This approach was supported by some 

(e.g. Minckley 1973), but it was not until further evidence was generated by DeMarais (1986, 

1995) that the specific status for G. intermedia was generally accepted. DeMarais (1995) 

supported continued recognition of G. intermedia based on the following arguments: 1) 

phenotypic extremes between G. intermedia and G. robusta are widely divergent and each 

possesses many morphologically uniform populations; (2) the geographic distributions of both 

species is an overlapping mosaic, therefore not satisfying traditional geographic criteria; and (3) 

contiguous populations of G. intermedia and G. robusta show no evidence of genetic exchange, 

thus each species maintains its evolutionary independence. 

Gila chub is a thick-bodied species, chunky in aspect, whereas roundtail chub is slender and 

elongate, and headwater chub is intermediate in meristic and morphometric characteristics 

(Rinne 1969, 1976, Minckley 1973, DeMarais 1986, Minckley and DeMarais 2000, Marsh and 

Minckley 2009). Females can reach 250 mm (10 in) in total length (TL), but males rarely exceed 

150 mm (6 in)(Minckley 1969, 1973: Rinne and Minckley 1991, Schultz and Bonar 2006). Body 
243

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

coloration is typically dark overall, sometimes black or with diffuse, longitudinal stripes, with a 

lighter belly speckled with gray. The lateral scales often appear to be darkly outlined, lighter in 

center. Breeding males, and to a lesser extent females, develop red or orange on lower parts of 

the head and body and on bases of the pectoral, pelvic and anal fins. 

While most reproductive activity by Gila chub occurs during late spring and summer, in some 

habitats it may extend from late winter through early autumn (Minckley 1973). Schultz and 

Bonar (2006) data from Bonita and Cienega creeks suggested that multiple spawning attempts 

per year per individual were likely, with a major spawn in late February to early March followed 

by a secondary spawn in autumn after monsoon rains. Reproductive activities in Monkey Spring 

(now extirpated) reportedly occurred for longer periods than in other populations, as breeding 

appeared to last virtually all season (Minckley 1969, 1973, 1985). Bestgen (1985) concluded 

that temperature was the most significant environmental factor triggering spawning. 

Spawning probably occurs over submerged aquatic vegetation or root wads. Minckley (1973) 

observed a single female closely followed by several males over a bed of aquatic vegetation in a 

pond. Nelson (1993) suspected deep pools with vegetation in Cienega Creek were important 

sites for spawning but did not witness any associated behavior near submerged vegetation. 

Gila chub is considered a habitat generalist (Schultz and Bonar 2006), and commonly inhabits 

pools in smaller steams, cienegas, and artificial impoundments throughout its range in the Gila 

River basin at elevations between 600 and 1,700 m (2,000 to 5,500 ft) (Miller 1946, Minckley 

1973, Rinne 1975, Weedman et al. 1996). Common riparian plants associated with these 

populations include willows (Salix spp.), tamarisk (Tamarix spp.), cottonwoods (Populus spp.), 

seep-willow (Baccharis glutinosa), and ash (Fraxinus spp.). Typical aquatic vegetation includes 

watercress (Nasturtium officinale), horsetail (Equisetum spp.), rushes (Juncus spp.), and 

speedwell (Veronica anagallis-aquatica) (USFWS 1983, Weedman et al. 1996).

Gila chub is a highly secretive species, remaining near cover including undercut banks, boulders, 

root wads, fallen logs, and thick overhanging or aquatic vegetation in deeper waters, especially 

pools (Rinne and Minckley 1991; Nelson 1993, Weedman et al 1996). Recurrent flooding and a 

natural hydrograph are important in maintaining Gila chub habitats and in helping the species 

maintain a competitive edge over invading nonnative aquatic species (Propst et al. 1986, 

Minckley and Meffe 1987). They can survive in larger steam habitats, such as the San Carlos 

River, and artificial habitats, like the Buckeye Canal (Minckley et al. 1977, Minckley 1985, 

Rinne and Minckley 1991, Stout et al. 1970, Rinne 1976), and they interact with spring and 

small-stream fishes regularly (Meffe 1985). 

Young Gila chub are active throughout the day and feed on small invertebrates, aquatic 

vegetation (especially filamentous algae) and organic debris (Bestgen 1985, Griffith and Tiersch 

1989, Rinne and Minckley 1991). Adult chub are crepuscular feeders, consuming a variety of 

terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates, and fishes (Griffith and Tiersch 1989, Rinne and Minckley 

1991). Benthic feeding may also occur, as suggested by presence of small gravel particles. 
244

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Gila chub evolved in a fish community with low species diversity and where few predators 

existed, and as a result developed few or no mechanisms to deal with predation (Carlson and 

Muth 1989). This species is known to be associated with speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), 

longfin dace (Agosia chrysogaster), desert sucker (Pantosteus clarki), Sonora sucker 

(Catostomus insignis), Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis), desert pupfish (Cyprinodon 

macularius), and Santa Cruz pupfish (Cyprinodon arcuatus). Before the widespread 

introduction of nonnative fishes, Gila chub was probably the most predatory fish within the 

habitats it occupied. In the presence of the nonnative green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) in lower 

Sabino Creek, Arizona, Gila chub failed to recruit young (Dudley and Matter 2000). Direct 

predation by green sunfish on young Gila chub was the acknowledged cause of this observation. 

Many conservation and recovery efforts have been undertaken since species listing, largely by 

the Gila River Basin Native Fishes Conservation Program (Robinson 2010, 2011, 2012). 

Status and Distribution 

Historically, Gila chub was recorded from nearly 50 rivers, streams and spring-fed tributaries 

throughout the Gila River basin in southwestern New Mexico, central and southeastern Arizona, 

and northern Sonora, Mexico (Miller and Lowe 1967, Rinne and Minckley 1970, Minckley 

1973, Rinne 1976, DeMarais 1986, Sublette et al. 1990, Varela-Romero et al. 1992, Weedman et 

al. 1996); and, occupancy of Gila chub throughout its range was more dense, and currentlyoccupied sites were likely more expansive in distribution (Hendrickson and Minckley 1985, 

Minckley 1985, Rinne and Minckley 1991). Gila chub now occupies an estimated 10 to 15 

percent of its historical range (Weedman et al. 1996, 70 FR 66664) and these 25 localities are 

considered occupied, but all are small, isolated and face one or more threats (Weedman et al. 

1996, 70 FR 66664). The biological status of several of these populations is uncertain, and the 

number of localities currently occupied may overestimate the number of remnant populations in 

that some might not persist if its core connected population was extirpated (eliminated). 

Agua Fria River Subbasin 

The Agua Fria subbasin is the system furthest downstream in the Gila River basin that currently 

supports or is historically known to have supported Gila chub. This subbasin sustains or recently 

sustained four remnant Gila chub populations. The Agua Fria River mainstem was historically 

occupied, but that population is considered extirpated. The four extant populations are Indian 

Creek, Little Sycamore Creek, Silver Creek (with replicates Larry and Lousy Canyon), and 

Sycamore Creek. In 1996, all remnant populations were considered threatened by Weedman et 

al. (1966), and two of the four were considered unstable. 

In Silver Creek, a natural fish barrier (waterfall) has prevented invasion of green sunfish into the 

uppermost reaches, but the protected reach has only a few kilometers of perennial water, and the 

reach below is infested with nonnative green sunfish (Weedman et al. 1996). Natural barriers on 

Sycamore Creek have protected a portion of the population from warmwater nonnative fishes, 

but nonnative rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) is present upstream, and Gila chub may be 

functionally extirpated below the lowermost barrier where a suite of warmwater nonnative fishes 
245

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

reside (Weedman et al. 1996). The Gila chub population in Little Sycamore Creek inhabits two 

short perennial reaches totaling only about 1 km in length, but nonnative fishes have not been 

recorded there. The Indian Creek population was not detected until 1995, and in 2005 a portion 

of the population was salvaged as a precaution following the Cave Creek Complex Fire and later 

successfully returned. Weedman et al. (1996) noted that cattle grazing and recreational uses 

within some of the streams may be additional potential threats to the populations. The replicated 

populations in Lousy and Larry canyons seem to be doing well, and there are no threats from 

nonnative fishes. 

Verde River Subbasin 

The Verde subbasin drainage includes the north-central Gila River basin between the Agua Fria 

and Salt subbasins. The Verde mainstem downstream from Sullivan Lake is mostly perennial to 

its confluence, and several large tributary systems contribute perennial flows, primarily from the 

eastern portion of the drainage. Gila chub populations are recently known from only four 

remnant sites within the Verde subbasin: Red Tank Draw, Spring Creek, Walker Creek, and 

Williamson Valley Wash. A population historically collected from Big Chino Wash is 

considered extirpated. There have been no replications of any Verde subbasin populations. 

Williamson Valley Wash was tentatively considered extirpated by Weedman et al. (1996), but 

Bagley (2002) captured 50 individuals there in 2001. Spring Creek appears stable, and no 

nonnative fishes recently have been recorded from above a low (~0.5 m) diversion dam located 

near the mouth. Walker Creek appears stable and nonnative-free based on a number of surveys 

between 1978 and 2001. 

Santa Cruz River Subbasin 

Gila chub populations are known from three remnant sites (Cienega Creek, Sabino Canyon, and 

Sheehy Spring) in the Santa Cruz subbasin. The population in Cienega Creek and Mattie 

Canyon are the largest and most geographically widespread. The Gila chub proposed listing rule 

(67 FR 66664), final listing rule (70 FR 66664), and Rosemont BA (USFS 2012) state that Gila 

chub were captured in Empire Gulch in 1995 and 2001. That is an erroneous report unsupported 

by other sources (Ehret and Simms 2009, Simms 2013, Service files). The Sabino Creek 

population experienced bottlenecking associated with post-fire runoff in 2003, although the 

population was replicated into nearby Romero Canyon in 2005. Sheehy Spring is a small system 

that likely never supports more than ~500 adults. Gila chub also was known historically from 

Monkey Spring and the mainstem Santa Cruz River, but these populations are now extirpated. 

Cienega Creek is protected against nonnative fishes by at least two natural barriers, and the Gila 

chub population appears stable. However, headcutting along lower Wood Canyon threatens to 

capture Cienega Creek, which would initiate headward erosion up Cienega Creek that likely 

would significantly diminish Gila chub habitat. Gila chub habitat in Sabino Creek seems to be 

recovering since the Aspen Fire in 2003, and the stream is protected against upstream invasions 

of nonnative fishes by a low-head dam and multiple road crossings. Sheehy Spring has been 

invaded by nonnative mosquitofish, which has displaced Gila topminnow, but the species does 
246

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

not appear to be significantly affecting Gila chub. Sheehy Spring, however, is a tiny drainage 

and is close to the mainstem Santa Cruz River, possibly enhancing its potential for upstream 

invasions. Green sunfish, largemouth bass, and black bullhead have been recorded in the Santa 

Cruz River downstream of Sheehy Spring in the last three years (Service files). 

San Pedro River Subbasin 

The San Pedro River Subbasin includes the entire San Pedro River watershed upstream from the 

confluence with Gila River. Gila chub populations are known from three remnant sites (Hot 

Springs Canyon, O’Donnell Canyon, and Redfield Canyon) in the San Pedro River Subbasin. 

Hot Springs Canyon and O’Donnell Canyon populations are protected behind constructed fish 

barriers, and a barrier on Redfield Canyon is expected to be constructed during 2013 or 2014. At 

least four and possibly as many as six, of the nine historically-known populations within the 

subbasin are considered extirpated. 

Upper Gila River Subbasin 

Upper Gila River Subbasin includes the entire Gila River watershed upstream of the Salt River 

confluence, exclusive of the Santa Cruz and San Pedro subbasins. Major subdrainages include 

the San Carlos, San Simon, San Francisco, and upper Gila rivers (including its three forks). 

There are six remnant populations of Gila chub within this unit, and five historically-occupied 

streams are considered extirpated. The six populations are Blue River (San Carlos) Eagle, 

Bonita, Harden Cienega, and Dix creeks, Arizona; and, Turkey Creek, New Mexico. The Blue 

River (San Carlos) population is entirely on San Carlos Apache Tribal lands, and there is little 

information available regarding its status. There are constructed fish barriers on Bonita and Dix 

creeks, although nonnatives remain present in lower Bonita Creek. Harden Cienega appears free 

of nonnatives, although there is no barrier preventing their encroachment. The Eagle Creek 

population was significantly impacted by severe runoff following the 2011 Wallow Fire. The 

Turkey Creek population appears large and relatively stable, although rainbow trout inhabit the 

upper reaches and some warmwater nonnative species inhabit the lower reaches. Gila chub in 

Turkey Creek were affected by ash flows following the Miller Fire in 2011. Individuals were 

salvaged from the creek before the summer rains and were repatriated in 2012. 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat for Gila chub is designated for about 160.3 miles of stream reaches in Arizona 

and New Mexico that includes cienegas, headwaters, spring-fed streams, perennial streams, and 

spring-fed ponds. Critical habitat includes the area of bankfull width plus 300 feet on either side 

of the banks (70 FR 66664). The bankfull width is the width of the stream or river at bankfull 

discharge (i.e., the flow at which water begins to leave the channel and move into the floodplain) 

(Rosgen 1996). Critical habitat is organized into seven areas or river units: 

Area 1 - Upper Gila River, Grant County, New Mexico, and Greenlee County, Arizona, includes 

Turkey Creek (New Mexico), Eagle Creek, Harden Cienega Creek, and Dix Creek; 
247

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Area - 2, Middle Gila River, Gila and Pinal Counties Arizona, consists of Mineral Creek; 

Area - 3, Babocomari River, Santa Cruz County, Arizona includes O’Donnell Canyon and

Turkey Creek (Arizona); 

Area 4 - Lower San Pedro River, Cochise and Graham counties, Arizona, includes Bass Canyon, 

Hot Springs Canyon, and Redfield Canyon; 

Area 5 - Lower Santa Cruz River, Pima County, Arizona, includes Cienega Creek, Mattie 

Canyon, Empire Gulch, and Sabino Canyon; 

Area 6 - Upper Verde River, Yavapai County, Arizona, includes Walker Creek, Red Tank Draw, 

Spring Creek, and Williamson Valley Wash; and 

Area 7 - Agua Fria River, Yavapai County, Arizona, includes Little Sycamore Creek, Sycamore 

Creek, Indian Creek, Silver Creek, Lousy Canyon, and Larry Creek (70 FR 66664). 

There are seven primary constituent elements of critical habitat, which include those habitat 

features required for the physiological, behavioral, and ecological needs of the species: 

1. Perennial pools, areas of higher velocity between pools, and areas of shallow water 

among plants or eddies all found in headwaters, springs, and cienegas, generally of 

smaller tributaries; 

2. Water temperatures for spawning ranging from 63°F to 75 °F, and seasonally appropriate 

temperatures for all life stages (varying from about 50°F to 86 °F; 

3. Water quality with reduced levels of contaminants, including excessive levels of 

sediments adverse to Gila chub health, and adequate levels of pH (e.g. ranging from 6.5 

to 9.5), dissolved oxygen (i.e., ranging from 3.0 ppm to 10.0 ppm) and conductivity (i.e., 

100 mmhos to 1,000 mmhos); 

4. Prey base consisting of invertebrates (i.e., aquatic and terrestrial insects) and aquatic 

plants (i.e., diatoms and filamentous green algae); 

5. Sufficient cover consisting of downed logs in the water channel, submerged aquatic 

vegetation, submerged large tree root wads, undercut banks with sufficient overhanging 

vegetation, large rocks and boulders with overhangs, a high degree of stream bank 

stability, and a healthy, intact riparian vegetation community; 

6. Habitat devoid of non-native aquatic species detrimental to Gila chub or habitat in which 

detrimental nonnative species are kept at a level that allows Gila chub to continue to 

survive and reproduce; and 

7. Streams that maintain a natural flow pattern including periodic flooding (70 FR 66664). 

Consultation History 

Our information indicates that, range wide, more than 32 consultations have been completed or 

are underway for actions affecting Gila chub. These opinions primarily include the effects of 
248

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

grazing, water developments, fire, species control efforts, recreation, sport fish stocking, native 

fish restoration efforts, and mining. 

Environmental Baseline – Gila Chub 

The environmental baseline includes past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private 

actions in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal actions in the action 

area that have undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and the impact of State and 

private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation process. The environmental 

baseline defines the current status of the species and its habitat in the action area to provide a 

platform to assess the effects of the action now under consultation. 

Description of the Action Area 

The action area for Gila chub encompasses all occupied or likely-to-be occupied reaches of 

stream within the Cienega Creek watershed, as these will be subject to the proposed action’s 

effects to groundwater and surface flow hydrology. This area is described in detail in the Status 

of the Species and Critical Habitat within the Action Area section, below. The narrative that 

follows includes accounts of rangewide effects to Gila chub, its habitat, and its critical habitat as 

a means to describe similar factors affecting the species within the action area. 

Europeans have influenced Southern Arizona for hundreds of years, and Native Americans have 

done so for much longer (Hastings and Turner 1965, Bahre and Hutchinson 1985, Bahre 1991, 

Tellman et al. 1997). Often-cited human impacts in the area include vegetation type conversion, 

dewatering surface waters and aquifers, erosion and channel down cutting, loss or reduction of 

native species, introduction and spread of nonnative species, and habitat loss. As with many of 

the river basins in the southwest, aquatic habitats and fish communities in the Gila basin have 

changed from historical conditions (Miller 1961, de la Torre 1970, Naiman and Soltz 1981, 

Miller et al. 1989, Minckley and Deacon 1991, Minckley and Marsh 2009). Aquatic habitats 

have been fragmented and reduced in quantity and quality due to diversion, groundwater mining, 

and natural and human-caused changes in the watershed and hydrologic regime (de la Torre 

1970, Davis 1982, Tellman et al. 1997). 

With the arrival of Europeans, major alterations began in the Gila River basin (Rea 1983). 

Beaver, which were a major influence on the structure of the Gila basin aquatic ecosystem, were 

almost extirpated. The introduction of livestock began very early and resulted in substantial 

alteration of the watershed and its soil and vegetation (York and Dick Peddie 1969, Humphrey 

1987, Bahre 1991). Croplands increased, often along river terraces, resulting in destabilization 

and erosion of floodplains (Leopold 1946, Rea 1983). Roads and trails caused extensive erosion 

and substantial destruction of river channels (Leopold 1921, Dobyns 1981, Rutman 1997). 

Diversion of water, which was already practiced by Native Americans in some areas, increased 

in those areas and was initiated in others (Tellman et al. 1997). As diversion and irrigation 

increased, the demand for water storage increased, resulting in a variety of large and small dams 

and impoundments (Haddock 1980). Improper grazing, mining, timber harvest, hay harvesting, 

fire suppression, and other activities in the nineteenth century led to widespread erosion and 
249

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

channel entrenchment in southeastern Arizona streams and cienegas when above-average 

precipitation and flooding occurred in the late 1800s and early 1900s after a drought (Bryan 

1925, Martin 1975, Hendrickson and Minckley 1984, Sheridan 1986, Webb and Betancourt 

1992, Hereford 1993, Turner et al. 2003). By the mid 1900's, large stretches of river in the Gila 

basin no longer had perennial flow, and the remaining areas were separated by long dry 

stretches, dams, and impounded water (Brown et al. 1977, Rea 1983, Hendrickson and Minckley 

1984, Tellman et al. 1997).

As a result of these changes, the riverine habitats of the Gila basin, including the Santa Cruz 

River (de La Torre 1970, Logan 2002) and Cienega Creek (Bodner and Simms 2008), became 

fragmented, and connectivity was substantially reduced. Populations of fish or other aquatic 

species eradicated were not replaced by colonization (Minckley 1999, Hedrick et al. 2001). 

Habitat fragmentation contributes to the genetic isolation of populations (Parker et al. 1999). 

Population fragmentation can reduce genetic variation and viability (Minckley 1999). This, in 

turn, can increase the risk of extinction by reducing survival, reproduction, and dispersal. 

Isolation also precludes re-colonization should one or more populations be eliminated. When an 

inhospitable environment that imposes a high degree of threat on the remnant habitat surrounds 

isolated populations, these risks are compounded. This fragmentation has been a major factor in 

the decline of almost all of Arizona’s native aquatic fauna and has resulted in the existing, where 

native aquatic species, particularly rarer ones, tend to be isolated in small headwater areas 

scattered across the tributaries of the basin (Hendrickson and Minckley 1984, Minckley 1985, 

Minckley and Marsh 2009). 

Human disturbances of the watershed, floodplain, and stream channel change many of the factors 

determining channel configuration. Increased sediment off the watershed is a common result of 

human actions, and sediment is a major determinant of channel shape (Leopold 1997). When the 

dynamic equilibrium has been disrupted, the channel begins a process of adjustment as it 

attempts to restore a dimension, pattern, and profile that are consistent with controlling hydraulic 

variables (Rosgen 1996). These adjustments may lead to dramatic changes in the stream channel 

width, depth, and geometry that encroach on human activities, such as has occurred on the Verde 

River. As human activities are affected, additional flood control and channelization measures 

may occur, which exacerbate the problems in adjacent areas, and the channel will continue to 

become increasingly unstable. Some of these effects have been ameliorated in some areas, and 

several recovery projects are underway. 

Nonnative species were imported by humans, starting with common carp (Cyprinus carpio) to 

Arizona in 1885 (Gilbert and Scofield 1898). Since that time, at least 50 species of nonnative 

fish have been introduced (ASU, Geographic Information Systems database of fish records, 

2001) into the Gila River basin, and there are other records of incidental occurrences of another 

10 to 15 species (Minckley and Marsh 2009). Many nonnative aquatic invertebrates, 

amphibians, reptiles, plants, and disease and parasite organisms (Sinderman 1993, Clarkson et al. 

1997, Robinson et al. 1998, Bradley et al. 2002) have also been introduced. These species have 

been purposefully introduced for sport-fishing, bait, biocontrol, and ornamental fish use and 

releases through aquaculture, aquarium, and generalized “bait bucket” activities. They have also 

been accidentally introduced through interbasin water transfers (Davies et al. 1992, Meador 
250

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

1992, 1996; Stefferud and Meador 1998, Claudi and Leach 2000), aquarium and pet releases 

(Welcomme 1988, Courtenay 1993, FAO 1998), and inclusion with other species being 

purposefully stocked (Marsh and Minckley 1982, Platz et al. 1990). Nonnative aquatic species 

have had major detrimental impacts on native aquatic fauna and were a major factor in the listing 

of topminnow and pupfish, as well as many other fishes native to the Gila basin (Desert Fishes 

Team 2003, 2006; USFWS 1984; 40 FR 29863, 50 FR 30188, 51 FR 10842, 51 FR 23769, 51 

FR 39468, 52 FR 46400, 56 FR 13374). Introduction of nonnative pathogens, parasites (Wilson 

et al. 1996, Robinson et al. 1998, Weedman et al. 1996), plants, invertebrates, amphibians, and 

fish negatively affects the native fishes of the Southwest. Simms (1997) noted that stock tanks in 

the Cienega Creek watershed contained bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeiana), goldfish (Carassius 

auratus), largemouth and smallmouth bass (Micropterus salmoides and M. dolomieu, 

respectively), and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). Fortunately, Cienega Creek appears to be 

free of nonnative fishes at present. 

In summary, and given that Cienega Creek is within the Gila River basin as discussed above, the 

quality and quantity of suitable aquatic habitat for threatened and endangered fish in the action 

area has been affected through numerous past actions resulting in reduction of habitat, altered 

species composition, increased presence of nonindigenous aquatic species, decreased surfacewater availability, changes in stream morphology, and other factors. A significant portion of the 

adverse impacts to the aquatic and riparian ecosystem come from the additive effect of small 

actions that individually may not threaten the system, but cumulatively result in continuing 

deterioration of the ecosystem. 

Land ownership within the Cienega Creek watershed includes Forest Service, Bureau of Land 

Management, State Trust land, County land, and private land. Land use within and adjacent to 

where the proposed action will be implemented primarily consists of mining, livestock grazing, 

dispersed recreation (USFS 2012), and residential development (Hanson and Brott 2005). Barrel 

Canyon is the principal drainage system within the action area. Wasp, McCleary, and 

Scholefield Canyons discharge to Barrel Canyon, which discharges to Davidson Canyon and 

then to lower Cienega Creek in the northeastern part of the area. Empire Gulch and Gardner 

Canyon discharge into upper Cienega Creek in the southeastern portion of the action area. 

Previous mineral exploration and production activities in the project area as well as within the 

watersheds in the larger action area have resulted in numerous landscape disturbances, such as 

mine prospects and adits, mine related access roads, and drilling sites. Additional anthropogenic 

disturbances have resulted from livestock grazing and all-terrain vehicle use. Within and near 

the action area, there are numerous wells in the Vail and Corona de Tucson areas that support 

residential and ranching uses (USFS 2012, PAG 2012b). Wells continue to be drilled in the 

lower Cienega-Davidson Canyon area, especially in the lower Cienega and Davidson Canyon 

areas (PAG 2012b). The drilling rate has also increased, with the number of wells drilled over 

the last 10-year period, greater than the previous 20 years (PAG 2012b). There has also been an 

upward trend in the amount of water pumped in the Cienega-Davidson area (Fonseca 2008), with 

about 804 acre-feet (af) withdrawn in 2010 (PAG 2012b). This area is within the Tucson Active 

Management Area, so groundwater restrictions and well reporting apply there. The number of 

wells in the Sonoita area has also increased in the last decade. In 2005 unpublished data, there 
251

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

are over 100 wells listed for the Sonoita area (Service files). We know of no data or reports 

demonstrating impacts to upper Cienega Creek from wells in the Sonoita-Elgin area. 

Upper and lower Cienega Creek, lower Davidson Canyon, Empire Gulch, and Gardner Canyon 

are all areas with shallow groundwater (Pima Association of Governments 2012b). As can be 

seen in Table GC-1, these shallow groundwater areas also support perennial and intermittent 

stream reaches, and hydro-meso- and xeroriparian vegetation (Pima County 2000, Pima 

Association of Governments 2012a, 2012b). Any reduction of the water table that supports these 

shallow groundwater areas will likely reduce all the parameters (except maybe xeroriparian) in 

Table A (Fonseca 2008) (also see Table GC-1, below), with perennial stream miles of most 

concern for Gila chub. The number of days with no flow (Hynes 1970), and the extent of flow in 

May and June are the limiting factors for fish (Fonseca 2008). 

Table GC-1: Shallow groundwater areas in the Rosemont action area. Derived from Pima County (2000)

Area

Shallow 

groundwater 

(acres)

Perennial 

stream (miles)

Intermittent 

stream (miles)

Hydro-meso 

riparian 

vegetation 

(acres)

Xeroriparian 

vegetation 

(acres)

Upper Cienega 2,911 7.71

4.6 897 160

Lower Cienega 1,651 2.7 4.8 577 56

Gardner 1,210 0 0.5 - -

Davidson 907 0.7 1.3 - -

Empire - 1.4 - - -

Mattie - 1.3 0.4 - -

1 Average of 4.1 miles since 2001; 3.3 miles in fiscal year 2009-2010 (PAG 2012a)

In Knight’s 1996 Thesis A Water Budget and Land Management Recommendations For Upper 

Cienega Creek Basin, he presents data from Bota (1996) on mountain front recharge (Table GC2). Most of that mountain front recharge comes down Gardner Canyon. Gardner Canyon does 

drain much of the east side of the Santa Rita Mountains, and begins at the highest elevations. 

Undoubtedly, Gardner Canyon contributes a large part of the recharge for upper Cienega Creek. 

Table GC-2: Mountain front recharge for the upper Cienega Creek basin, Arizona. 

Adapted from Knight 1996; data from Bota 1996.

Recharge Area Recharge (ac ft/yr) Percent of recharge

Santa Rita and Empire Mountains 5,564 41

Whetstone Mountains 4,936 36

Mustang Mountains 1,516 11

Canelo Hills 1,508 11

Total 13,524 99

Las Cienegas National Conservation Area (NCA) was created by Congress to "conserve, protect, 

and enhance" biological and other natural resources. The BLM manages Las Cienegas NCA 

with restrictions on multiple use activities that would impair ecological processes on watershed 

and riparian areas, as described in the current resource management plan (BLM 2002). Cienega 

Creek is subject to a number of human uses, including livestock grazing, recreation, urban and 

suburban development, groundwater pumping, and roads. Before BLM acquired the Las 
252

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Cienegas NCA, the area was primarily used for grazing, and there were extensive agricultural 

fields along the creek as well (Eddy and Cooley 1983). These fields were irrigated by a system 

of canals and dams and protected by a canal (“the Panama Canal”) that the BLM is removing to 

restore more natural geomorphic and hydrological conditions conducive to native fish habitat 

(USFWS 1998, Simms 2001). The NCA presently receives heavy human visitation, and most of 

Cienega Creek is readily accessible. Upstream of the NCA, the Cienega Creek watershed is 

primarily used for livestock grazing. However, there is extensive proliferation of ranchette 

development in the area surrounding Sonoita that has increased the number of wells. Several 

wineries and vineyards occur along the groundwater divide between Cienega Creek and 

Babocomari River basins. The vineyards use mostly groundwater. The environmental baseline 

of the Las Cienegas NCA is thoroughly discussed in the USFWS 2012 Las Cienegas Aquatic 

Species BO (File number 22410-2002-F-0162-R001), and USFWS 2002 Las Cienegas NCA 

Resource Management Plan BO (File number 22410-2002-F-0162), and are incorporated by 

reference (FWS 2002, 2012). 

The Cienega Creek Natural Preserve is established and managed by Pima County for the 

protection of its unique natural and cultural resources. Although accommodated, public 

recreation and education activities are limited so they will not degrade these resources. A permit 

is required by all visitors to the Preserve. Permits are issued by the Pima County Natural 

Resources, Parks and Recreation Department with the intent to limit the number of daily visitors 

to the Preserve and to notify visitors of the restrictive and prohibited activities (Pima County 

Flood Control District 2013). 

The Pima County Draft Multiple Species Conservation Plan (Pima County 2012a) commits Pima 

County to pursue the following management actions and conservation commitments for the Gila 

chub (and Gila topminnow)(Pima County 2012b): 

 Seek to prohibit Pima County Health Department from using Gambusia for mosquito 

control in watersheds tributary to reintroduction sites and in the Cienega Creek watershed 

upstream of Colossal Cave Road; 

 Support protection of Cienega Creek water quality via ADEQ’s Outstanding Waters 

program; 

 Identify and address management of nonnative aquatic organisms through management 

plans and ranch infrastructure projects on County-controlled mitigation lands in the 

Cienega watershed; 

 Implement the Pima County Floodplain Ordinance as described in Chapter 4 (Pima 

County 2012a) to minimize loss of habitat for these species; 

 Implement monitoring as described in Appendix O (Pima County 2012b), including 

recording and entering incidental observations in the Covered Species Information 

Database; and 

 Following significant upgrades to the County’s two wastewater facilities, the Santa Cruz 

River downstream of the facilities may show favorable conditions for the reestablishment 

of Gila topminnow, longfin dace, desert sucker, and Sonora sucker. Pima County will 

work with the USFWS following upgrades in 2016 and subsequent water-quality testing 

to determine if fish monitoring is a reasonable and prudent activity at that location. If so, 
253

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Pima County will commit to monitoring every 5 years using electrofishing and seining 

using the same methods as employed by Clarkson et al. (2011). 

The Cienega Creek Natural Preserve is part of what is referred to as the Missing Link, or 

Cienega Corridor. An assessment of the area, required under the legislation establishing the Las 

Cienegas National Conservation Area, was completed by the Sonoran Institute (Hanson and 

Brott 2005). 

Status of the Species and Critical Habitat within the Action Area 

The action-area status of the Gila chub was recently described in our 2008 and 2012 BOs that 

addressed effects of Aquatic Species Conservation at the San Pedro Riparian and Las Cienegas 

National Conservation Areas, Arizona (File numbers 22410-2008-F-0103, 22410-2002-F-0162-

R001). The action areas for those BOs overlap with the action area of the proposed action; that 

information is updated here. The status of Gila chub in the action area continues to be stable 

since the 2008 and 2012 BOs were completed (USFWS 2008, 2012). 

The Santa Cruz River has five tributaries with extant populations of Gila chub: Sabino Canyon, 

Bear Canyon, Romero Canyon (Pima County), and Sheehy Spring (Santa Cruz County) have 

unstable-threatened populations, and Cienega Creek (Pima and Santa Cruz counties) has the only 

known stable-secure population of Gila chub in existence. Lower Cienega Creek has a small 

population north of Interstate 10 on Pima County’s Cienega Creek Natural Preserve. On the Las 

Cienegas NCA, the chub is found throughout Cienega Creek and lower Mattie Canyon but is 

absent from Empire Gulch (Ehret and Simms n.d., Simms 2013). All three creeks on the Las 

Cienegas NCA have designated critical habitat, and all of the critical habitat in the Cienega 

Creek watershed is within the action area. Regional drought has impacted stream flows in both 

Empire Gulch and Cienega Creek, and resulted in a decrease in the amount of perennial aquatic 

habitat (Duncan and Garfin 2006, Bodner et al. 2007, Bodner and Simms 2008). 

There is no suitable habitat, or known occurrences of this species, within the actual footprint of 

the action; however, there is suitable, occupied habitat within the action area. Surveys for this 

species have not been conducted within the action area for the purposes of the proposed action. 

We report here on survey information for the potentially affected area including Cienega Creek 

and its tributaries. Gila chub have been reported recently, from the Las Cienegas NCA, and from 

the Cienega Creek Natural Preserve, upstream of the confluence of Cienega Creek with 

Davidson Canyon (70 FR 66664b, Ehret and Simms n.d., Simms 2009,); both of these reaches of 

Cienega Creek are located within the action area. In 2002, two Gila chub were collected in the 

Cienega Creek Natural Preserve upstream of “railroad bridge” from a “deep pool” in the area 

covered by the Rincon Peak quadrangle map, on which coverage of Cienega Creek begins about 

1 mile upstream of the Davidson Canyon confluence (Reinthal 2009). In 2005 and 2006, five 

reaches of Cienega Creek were sampled for fish during annual stream flow mapping by Pima 

Association of Governments. Gila chub were “observed” in Stream Reach 3, immediately 

upstream of the Davidson Canyon confluence (70 FR 66664b, 2006). Although Stream Reach 2, 

immediately downstream of the Davidson Canyon confluence, is described as “the best habitat 

for chub and topminnow” (70 FR 66664b), no Gila chub were reported in this reach in either 
254

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

2005 or 2006 (70 FR 66664b, USFWS 2005). As part of an ongoing program established by the 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Cienega Creek had fish monitoring conducted from 2007 through 

2010 (Kesner and Marsh 2010; Marsh and Kesner 2011). Sampling was conducted at two 

locations in Cienega Creek: Station 1 (upstream of the confluence of Davidson Canyon) and 

Station 2 (Three Bridges). No Gila chub were taken at either station in 2007 or 2008 (Kesner 

and Marsh 2010). One Gila chub was collected at Station 1 in 2009 (Kesner and Marsh 2010), 

and five Gila chub were collected at Station 1 in 2010 (Marsh and Kesner 2011). 

Extensive surveys in 2009 and 2011 suggest that Gila chub continue to be abundant in upper 

Cienega Creek (Doug Duncan, USFWS, pers. comm). Surveys in 2007 demonstrated that Gila 

chub are recolonizing Mattie Canyon following heavy flooding and extreme sedimentation 

resulting from collapse of a grade control structure in 2001. No chub have ever been observed in 

Empire Gulch since BLM acquired Las Cienegas NCA in 1988. 

Additionally, Gila chub have been documented within upper Cienega Creek during various 

survey efforts from 1985 to 1995 (Weedman et al. 1996, Bodner et al. 2007, Schultz 2009). The 

BLM conducted chub sampling efforts in 2005, 2007, and 2008 within both reaches of upper 

Cienega Creek and within Mattie Canyon in 2007 and 2008, and Gila chub were captured and 

abundant during each effort (Ehret and Simms n.d. [2009]). BLM has conducted fish sampling 

almost every year in the Las Cienegas NCA since 1989 (Bodner et al. 2007). As part of an effort 

intended to create, enhance, and protect habitat for at-risk aquatic species within the Las 

Cienegas NCA, Caldwell et al. (2011) identified numerous pond sites for Gila chub 

reestablishment. 

Native fish species in Cienega Creek on Las Cienegas NCA include Gila topminnow, longfin 

dace (Agosia chrysogaster), and Gila chub (Bagley et al. l991, Simms and Simms 1992). 

Cienega Creek is one of the last places in Arizona supporting an intact native fish fauna 

uncontaminated by nonindigenous fish (Bodner et al. 2007). The lack of a nonnative fish 

community raises the conservation status of Cienega Creek and contributes to its stable-secure 

status. 

Status of Gila Chub Critical Habitat 

The action area is within the 48.1 km (29.9 mi) Lower Santa Cruz/Cienega Creek Critical 

Habitat Unit (Unit 5) for Gila chub as described in the Final Rule (70 FR 66664). Cienega Creek 

and its tributaries Mattie Canyon and Empire Gulch contribute 77 percent of that, or 37 km (23 

mi). The designated critical habitat in the action area represents 14 percent of all designated 

critical habitat. 

Approximately 14.2 km (8.8 mi) of this area of critical habitat occurs in lower Cienega Creek 

between Interstate 10 and where Cienega Creek becomes Pantano Wash (though the area at 

Pantano Dam is not included). Another 13.6 km (8.4 mi) of critical habitat occurs within the Las 

Cienegas NCA in upper Cienega Creek, with an additional 5.2 km (3.2 mi) in Empire Gulch and 

4.0 km (2.5 mi) in Mattie Canyon, on BLM and State Trust lands. All these sections of 

designated critical habitat contain one or more PCE: perennial pools, the necessary vegetation 
255

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

that provides cover, and adequate water quality. All of these sections are also within the action 

area of the proposed action. There are recent documented occurrences of Gila chub in both 

upper and lower segments of designated critical habitat within the action area and they are, 

therefore, considered occupied except for Empire Gulch. The populations within lower Cienega 

Creek are considered unstable, and those within upper Cienega Creek and Mattie Canyon are 

considered stable (Weedman et al. 1996, 70 FR 66664). 

Factors affecting species environment and critical habitat within the action area 

Primary threats to designated critical habitat and Gila chub include fire, nonnative species (both 

present and future), and water use in lower Cienega Creek; fire and nonnative species in upper 

Cienega Creek; fire, grazing, and nonnative species in Mattie Canyon; and fire and grazing in 

Empire Gulch (70 FR 66664). We describe activities that have occurred within and near the 

action area to qualify the environmental baseline and the state of critical habitat. 

The seven PCEs of critical habitat include: (1) perennial pools; (2) appropriate water 

temperature; (3) good water quality; (4) adequate prey base; (5) sufficient cover; (6) no or 

minimal nonnative aquatic species; and (7) a natural hydrological cycle. 

Water use 

The over allocation of water resources in Arizona has already affected flows in many southern 

Arizona rivers (Hendrickson and Minckley 1983, Pool and Coes 1999, Logan 2002, Minckley 

and Marsh 2009). Groundwater pumping has eliminated habitat in the Santa Cruz River north of 

Tubac (Logan 2002), and threatens habitat in the San Pedro River. It is likely that some sites 

may not be viable in the future as a result of groundwater overdraft. The current drought has 

compounded the effects of pumping on vulnerable spring sources. 

Haney et al. (2009) compared stream baseflow, current and projected populations, and different 

water use scenarios for 18 watersheds in Arizona. For the base population projection (least water 

use scenario; reduces water demand by 30 percent by 2050 and reduces population 25 percent 

below base projections), demand will equal base flows in the lower Cienega watershed by 2050, 

though we note that this projection included diversion and off-site use of water at Pantano Dam. 

The proposed action includes cessation of this diversion and recharge of the water through a 

Managed Underground Storage Facility. In all other scenarios, municipal water demand will 

exceed baseflow in lower Cienega Creek. The most aggressive scenario for amount of municipal 

water required increases population by 25 percent above base projections. We further note that 

the aforementioned recharge may offset some portion of the anticipated increases in groundwater 

pumping in the Vail and southeastern Tucson area. 

In contrast to lower Cienega Creek, projected water demand is substantially less than base flow 

for the upper Cienega study watersheds for all four of the Haney et al. (2009) scenarios. Upper 

and lower Cienega Creek had the lowest water use (gal/person/day) of all 18 watersheds. 

Unfortunately, this also means water conservation would have less absolute impact on municipal 

water use. 
256

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Nonnative species

Most introductions of nonindigenous fishes and bullfrogs have been done illegally for many 

reasons (Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force 1994, Rosen et al. 1995, USFWS 2008); the 

establishment of sport fish is an appreciable source of nonindigenous fishes (Rinne et al. 1998). 

Illegal introductions of nonindigenous fishes and other aquatic invasive species are routinely 

made by the public (e.g., red shiner, and guppies at Watson Wash). The release of 

nonindigenous fish, and likely bullfrogs, by the public has been a major factor in the spread of 

these species (Moyle 1976a, 1976b; Welcomme 1988). Nonindigenous fish are transported for 

bait and sporting purposes (Moyle 1976a, 1976b), for mosquito control (Meffe et al. 1983), and 

as aquarium fishes (Deacon et al. 1964, Moore et al. 1976, Shelton and Smitherman 1984). The 

population of Gila topminnow at Watson Wash was extirpated as a result of transfers of 

nonindigenous fish into topminnow habitat (Voeltz and Bettaso 2003). Refer to our May 15, 

2008, BO on the Central Arizona Project for a discussion on the pathways and impacts of 

nonindigenous aquatic species to native fish, native frogs, and their habitats (file number 22410-

2007-F-0081). We incorporate that BO by reference that discussion (USFWS 2008). Bullfrogs 

are present in Cienega Creek and its watershed.

Additionally, with increasing access and recreational use, the vulnerability of the stream and its 

native fish populations to nonindigenous species invasion is intensifying. The Cienega Creek 

basin has been closed to fishing by the Arizona Game and Fish Commission to reduce the 

potential for release of illegal fish and live bait. Finally, degradation of habitats is a wellrecognized factor in establishment of nonnative species (Courtenay and Stauffer 1984, 

Arthington et al. 1990, Soule 1990, Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force 1994, Meador et al. 

2003). In the Cienega Creek watershed, largemouth bass, green sunfish, and bullheads have 

been found in off-channel waters (clay pits, stock tanks, private ponds). Nonnative fish have not 

been found in Cienega Creek, Mattie Canyon, or Empire Gulch. 

Livestock grazing 

Historically, improper livestock grazing and logging likely contributed to habitat modifications 

noted by Miller (1950). The historical occurrence of intensive grazing and resulting effects on 

the land are indicated in published reports dating back to the early 1900s (Rixon 1905, Rich 

1911, Duce 1918, Leopold 1921, Leopold 1924). 

Livestock grazing has been shown to increase soil compaction, decrease water infiltration rates, 

increase runoff, change vegetative species composition, decrease riparian vegetation, increase 

stream sedimentation, increase stream water temperature, decrease fish populations and change 

channel form (Meehan and Platts 1978, Kauffman and Kruger 1984, Schulz and Leininger 1990, 

Platts 1991, Fleischner 1994, Ohmart 1996). Although direct impacts to the riparian zone and 

stream can be the most obvious sign of livestock grazing, upland watershed condition is also 

important because soil compaction, changes in percent vegetation cover, and vegetative type can 

influence the timing and amount of water and sediment delivered to stream channels (Platts 

1991, Ohmart 1996, Belsky and Blumenthal 1997). As a consequence, impacted streams are 
257

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

more likely to experience flood events that negatively affect the aquatic and riparian habitats and 

are more likely to become intermittent or dry in the fall (groundwater recharge is less when water 

runs off quickly) (Platts 1991, Ohmart 1996). 

Livestock grazing has been an ongoing disturbance in and around the footprint of the proposed 

mine for over 100 years; historically at much higher levels than at present. Rosemont holds term 

grazing USFS permits on four allotments: Rosemont, Thurber, Greaterville, and DeBaud. As 

part of its conservation measures, Rosemont and the USFS will develop modified allotment 

management plans for the grazing allotments to improve riparian areas and enhance water 

features. Livestock grazing within the perimeter fence will be assessed by Rosmeont and the 

USFS upon construction of mine facilities to determine whether grazing can continue during 

mine operations. If it is determined that grazing can continue within the inter-fence area, 

specific management prescriptions will be developed. Livestock grazing on the Las Cienegas 

NCA is managed by BLM to be compatible with the natural values of the area. 

Fire 

Since 2002, there have been several fires that have burned over 60,700 hectares (150,000 acres) 

in the Coronado National Forest that are near both occupied and designated CH for Gila chub. In 

May 2003, Gila chub were salvaged from Sabino Canyon during the Aspen Fire and were 

subsequently returned and now thrive in Sabino Creek. Gila chub continue to persist, post-fire in 

O’Donnel Creek. No fires appear to have impacted the Gila chub in Cienega Creek, though the 

2005 Florida Fire burned in upper Gardner Canyon and its tributaries. 

Direct fire-related fish mortalities are most likely during intense fires in small, headwater streams 

with low flows and high fuel-loads (less insulation and less water for dilution) (Gresswell 1999). 

In these situations, water temperatures can become elevated or changes in pH may cause 

immediate death (Cushing and Olson 1963). Spencer and Hauer (1991) documented 40-fold 

increases in ammonium concentrations during an intense fire in Montana. The inadvertent 

dropping of fire retardant in streams is another source of direct mortality of fish during fires. 

Dr. Wayne Minshall (pers. comm., February 1995, Idaho State Univ.) has investigated the 

effects of fire on streams. Nutrients contributed from fires are phosphorous, which is associated 

with ash, and nitrogen/ammonia, which is associated with smoke. Ammonia is toxic to fish. In 

addition, incomplete combustion of materials creates charcoal and charcoal in the water can lead 

to deoxygenation. Minshall has done studies of effects of fire on water temperature (Minshall et 

al. 1989). They found small temperature changes in shallow ponds and small streams. They 

believed that the impact of fire on streams varied proportionally with the intensity and extent of 

burning of the watershed and the vegetation present. 

Indirect effects of fire include ash and debris flows, increased water temperature, increased 

nutrient inputs, and sedimentation (Swanston 1991, Bozek and Young 1994, Gresswell 1999). 

Ash and debris flows can cause mortality months after fires occur when barren soils are eroded 

during precipitation (Bozek and Young 1994, Brown et al. 2001, Rinne 2004, Rhodes 2007). 

Fish can suffocate when their gills are coated with fine particulate matter, they can be physically 
258

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

injured by rocks and debris, or they can be displaced downstream below impassable barriers into 

habitat occupied by nonnative fish. Ash and debris flows or severe flash flooding can also 

decimate aquatic invertebrate populations that fish may depend on for food (Molles 1985, Rinne 

and Medina 1992, Rinne 1996, Lytle 2000). In larger streams, refugia are typically available 

where fish can withstand short-term adverse conditions; small headwater streams are usually 

more confined, concentrating the force of water and debris (Pearsons et al. 1992, Brown et al. 

2001). 

The floodplains of both upper and lower Cienega Creek are well vegetated. However, the mesic 

nature of riparian floodplains should reduce impacts from wildfires in these areas. Because the 

Gila chub in the action area are not in isolated, small streams, are miles downstream from fuelloads that create ash and debris, the impact of ash and debris flows should be small. 

Climate change 

The June 2012 BA contained a detailed discussion of the likely effects of climate change; the 

analysis is incorporated herein via reference and is expanded upon in the following paragraphs. 

That southeastern Arizona and much of the American southwest have experienced serious 

drought recently is well known (Garfin et al. 2013). What is known with far less certainty is 

how long droughts last. State-of-the-art climate science does not yet support multi-year or 

decade-scale drought predictions. However, instrumental and paleoclimate records from the 

Southwest indicate that the region has a history of multi-year and multi-decade drought 

(Hereford et al. 2002, Sheppard et al. 2002, Jacobs et al. 2005). Multi-decade drought in the 

Southwest is controlled primarily by persistent Pacific Ocean-atmosphere interactions, which 

have a strong effect on winter precipitation (Brown and Comrie 2004, Schneider and Cornuelle 

2005); persistent Atlantic Ocean circulation is theorized to have a role in multi-decadal drought 

in the Southwest, particularly with respect to summer precipitation (Gray et al. 2003, McCabe et 

al. 2004, Wang et al. 2013). Given these multi-decade “regimes” of ocean circulation, and the 

severity and persistence of the present multi-year drought, there is a fair likelihood that the 

current drought will persist for many more years (Stine 1994, Seager et al. 2007), albeit with 

periods of high year-to-year precipitation variability characteristic of Southwest climate. There 

is high confidence the Southwest will experience exceptional, decades-long droughts, and they 

will be hotter than historical droughts (Overpeck et al. 2012).

The information on how climate change might impact southeastern Arizona is less certain than 

current drought predictions. However, virtually all climate change scenarios predict that the 

American southwest will get warmer during the 21st century (IPCC 2001, 2007; Overpeck et al. 

2012). Precipitation predictions show a greater range of possibilities, depending on the model 

and emissions scenario, though precipitation is likely to be less (USGCRP 2001, Seager et al. 

2007). To maintain the present water balance with warmer temperatures and all other biotic and 

abiotic factors constant, precipitation will need to increase to keep pace with the increased 

evaporation and transpiration caused by warmer temperatures. 

Drought and climate change will also impact watersheds and subsequently the water bodies in 

those watersheds. Drought and especially long-term climate change will affect how ecosystems 
259

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

and watersheds function. These changes will cause a cascade of ecosystem changes, which may 

be hard to predict and are likely to occur non-linearly (Seager et al. 2007). 

Many of the predictions about the impacts of climate change are based on modeling, but many 

predictions have already occurred. In addition, many models have underestimated the increase 

in greenhouse gasses. The tree die-offs and fires that have occurred in the southwest early in this 

century show the impacts of the current drought. Because of drought, climate change, and 

human population growth, negative effects to aquatic habitat in the Gila basin will continue to 

occur. In addition, the basin’s rivers, streams, and springs continue to be degraded (Overpeck et 

al. 2012), or lost entirely. Climate change trends are highly likely to continue (Overpeck et al. 

2012), and the impacts on species will likely be complicated by interactions with other factors 

(e.g., interactions with nonnative species and other habitat-disturbing activities). 

Increased water temperature 

Kundzewicz et al. (2007) state that of all ecosystems, freshwater ecosystems will have the 

highest proportion of species threatened with extinction due to climate change. Species with 

narrow temperature tolerances will likely experience the greatest effects from climate change and 

it is anticipated that populations located at the margins of species hydrologic and geographic 

distributions will be affected first (Meisner 1990). High water temperatures suppress appetite 

and growth, foster disease, can influence behavioral interactions with other fish (Schrank et al. 

2003), reduce reproductive success (Bonar et al. 2005), or be lethal (McCullough 1999). The 

temperature preferences and tolerances of Gila chub are less than 98.6 °F (37.0 °C)(Carveth et 

al. 2006). 

Increased occurrence of extreme events 

Extreme events such as drought, fires, and floods are predicted to occur more frequently because 

of climate change (IPCC 2007, Overpeck et al. 2012). It is anticipated that an increase in 

extreme events will most likely affect populations living at the edge of their physiological 

tolerances. The predicted increases in extreme temperature and precipitation events may lead to 

dramatic changes in the distribution of species or to their extirpation or extinction (Parmesan and 

Matthews 2006). 

Decreased streamflow 

Current models suggest a decrease in precipitation in the Southwest (Kundzewicz et al. 2007, 

Seager et al. 2007) which would lead to reduced streamflows and a reduced amount of habitat 

for Gila chub. Streamflow is predicted to decrease in the Southwest even if precipitation were to 

increase moderately (Nash and Gleick 1993, State of New Mexico 2005, Hoerling and Eischeid 

2007). Winter and spring warming causes an increased fraction of precipitation to fall as rain, 

resulting in a reduced snow pack, an earlier snowmelt, and decreased summer base flow 

(Christensen et al. 2004, Stewart et al. 2004, Stewart et al. 2005, Regonda et al. 2005). Earlier 

snowmelt and warmer air temperatures can lead to a longer dry season. Warmer air temperatures 

lead to increased evaporation, increased evapotranspiration, and decreased soil moisture. These 
260

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

three factors would lead to decreased streamflow even if precipitation increased moderately 

(Garfin 2005, Seager et al. 2007). The effect of decreased streamflow is that streams become 

smaller, intermittent or dry, and thereby reduce the amount of habitat available for aquatic 

species. A smaller stream is affected more by air temperature than a larger one, exacerbating the 

effects of warm and cold air temperatures (Smith and Lavis 1975). In addition, fish isolated in 

pools may be subject to increased predation from terrestrial predators (ORPI 2008). 

Change in the hydrograph 

In a warmer world an enhanced hydrologic cycle is expected; flood extremes could be more 

common resulting in larger floods; droughts may be more intense, frequent, and longer-lasting 

(Seager et al. 2007). Stewart et al. (2005) show that timing of spring streamflow in the western 

U.S. during the last five decades has shifted so that the major peak now arrives 1 to 4 weeks 

earlier, resulting in less flow in the spring and summer. They conclude that almost everywhere 

in North America, a 10 to 50 percent decrease in spring-summer streamflow fractions will 

accentuate the seasonal summer dry period with important consequences for warm-season water 

supplies, ecosystems, and wildfire risks (Stewart et al. 2005). Rauscher et al. (2008) suggest that 

with air temperature increasing from 37 to 41 °F (3 to 5 °C), snowmelt driven runoff in the 

western U.S. could occur as much as two months earlier than present. Changes in the 

hydrograph could potentially alter native fish assemblages. Variability in the hydrographs and 

greater flow volume has been shown to sustain native fishes (e.g., as seen for spikedace and 

loach minnow) over nonnatives between periodic flood events (Rinne and Miller 2006), although 

flooding has extirpated reintroduced Gila topminnow populations (Weedman 1999). 

Drought 

The Southwest U.S. is currently experiencing drought conditions (CLIMAS 2013). Almost 97 

percent of Arizona was abnormally dry or drier (March 2013, CLIMAS 2013). The Cienega 

Creek basin is in moderate drought. Larger parts of New Mexico are in severe drought 

(89%)(CLIMAS 2013), including areas currently occupied by Gila chub. Although Gila chub 

evolved in the Southwest and have survived drought in the past, it is anticipated that a prolonged, 

intense drought would affect many populations, in particular those occupying small headwater 

streams which are likely to dry or become intermittent. In addition, there is a clear association 

between severe droughts and large fires in the Southwest (Swetnam and Baisan 1996) that can 

harm fish and their habitat. 

The regional drought has impacted stream flows in both Empire Gulch and Cienega Creek, 

reducing the amount of perennial aquatic habitat (Bodner et al. 2007, Bodner and Simms 2008). 

Primary constituent elements one and three of critical habitat (perennial pools, areas of higher 

velocity between pools, and areas of shallow water; and water quality with reduced levels of 

contaminants, and adequate levels of pH, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity) have been 

negatively impacted by drought in the area. The solubility of oxygen into water is less with 

higher ambient temperatures (Wetzel 1983). 

Fire 
261

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Since the mid-1980s, wildfire frequency in western forests has nearly quadrupled compared to 

the average of the period 1970 to 1986 (Westerling et al. 2006). The total area burned is more 

than six and a half times the previous level (Westerling et al. 2006). In addition, the average 

length of the fire season during 1987 to 2003 was 78 days longer compared to 1970 to 1986 and 

the average time between fire discovery and control increased from about 8 to 37 days for the 

same time (Westerling et al. 2006). McKenzie et al. (2004) suggest, based on models, that the 

length of the fire season will likely increase and fires in the western U.S. will be more frequent 

and severe. In particular, they found that fire in New Mexico appears to be acutely sensitive to 

summer climate and temperature changes and may respond dramatically to climate warming 

(McKenzie et al. 2004). The summer temperatures in the southwest are predicted to increase 

more than any other season (Garfin et al. 2013). 

Furthermore, drought and climate change will cause changes in fire regimes in all southeastern 

Arizona vegetation communities (Kitzberger et al. 2006). The timing, frequency, extent, and 

destructiveness of wildfires are likely to increase (Westerling et al. 2006) and may facilitate the 

invasion and increase of nonindigenous plants. These changed fire regimes will change 

vegetation communities, the hydrological cycle, and nutrient cycling in affected watersheds 

(Brown et al. 2004). Some regional analyses conservatively predict that acreage burned annually 

will double with climate change (MacKenzie et al. 2004). Such watershed impacts could cause 

enhanced scouring and sediment deposition, more extreme flooding (quicker and higher peak 

flows), and changes to water quality due to increases in ash and sediment within stream 

channels. Severe watershed impacts such as these, when added to reductions in extant aquatic 

habitats, will severely restrict sites available for the conservation of native fish and other aquatic 

vertebrates and make management of extant sites more difficult. 

Severe wildfires capable of extirpating or decimating fish populations are a relatively recent 

phenomena and result from the cumulative effects of historical or ongoing grazing, which 

removes the fine fuels needed to carry fire and fire suppression (Madany and West 1983, Savage 

and Swetnam 1990, Swetnam 1990, Touchan et al. 1995, Swetnam and Baisan 1996, Belsky and 

Blumenthal 1997, Gresswell 1999). Historical wildfires in the southwest were primarily coolburning understory fires with return intervals of 3 to 7 years in ponderosa pine (Swetnam and 

Dieterich 1985). Cooper (1960) concluded that before the 1950s; crown fires were extremely 

rare or nonexistent in the region. Effects of fire may be direct and immediate or indirect and 

sustained over time (Gresswell 1999). 

Effects to Aquatic Species 

The June 2012 BA characterizes climate change as a threat to rare plants and animals, and the 

extensive analysis contained in that document are incorporated herein via reference. Climate 

change affects the habitats where the species occur and alters physical and biological factors with 

which species evolved. The most obvious effects are on aquatic and riparian resources: under a 

hotter and drier climate, surface water is generally less available than it was historically. There 

are numerous references that describe a decline in aquatic resources due to an altered climate 

(Lenart 2007, California Department of Water Resources 2008, Bogan and Lytle 2010, 
262

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

MacDonald 2010, Reiman and Isaak 2010, Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand 

Study 2011,). The most at-risk group of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species on the 

Coronado National Forest are those associated with aquatic environments. Although there are 

many threats that affect aquatic organisms, climate change has been shown to be a causative 

agent in population declines. 

Effects of the Action - Gila Chub 

Groundwater pumping to support residential development (and other uses) in the Cienega Creek 

watershed was identified as a factor influencing Gila chub in the final rule (70 FR 66664). The 

proposed action represents an additional increment of groundwater impacts. 

Despite the inherent uncertainties in the hydrologic system and the groundwater modeling data 

derived from analyses of that system, we are aware of no other model results or empirical data 

that would more accurately inform our analyses. The existing groundwater models therefore 

represent the best available information with which we can analyze the groundwater-related 

effects of the proposed action. Given the general agreement regarding the validity and utility of 

the Montgomery and Associates (2010), Tetra Tech (2010), and Myers (2012) models, SWCA 

prepared a definitive impact analysis for seeps, springs, and riparian ecosystems for the 

Coronado National Forest and presented it to us on November 16, 2012 (SWCA 2012). The 

Coronado National Forest subsequently adopted the SWCA analysis in the second Supplemental 

BA (USFS 2013a). These analyses were discussed in depth within the Effects to Aquatic 

Ecosystems section and are incorporated herein via reference. Also note that we relied primarily 

on the findings of Tetra Tech (2010); these are the largest in magnitude and therefore represent 

the most precautionary approach for the purposes of an effects analysis. 

The aforementioned changes in groundwater elevations predicted by the models and, when 

applicable, the inferred and modeled losses of surface flows supported by surface or near-surface 

groundwater elevations, are measurable and reasonably certain to occur, but their precise impacts 

on aquatic ecosystems and riparian vegetation are difficult to quantify. The subsequent analyses 

will therefore be primarily qualitative in nature. In addition, as previously stated, the reliability 

of the models’ estimated changes decreases over time. 

Water withdrawals that reduce the surface and subsurface discharge of a stream are an adverse 

effect on fishes and other aquatic species. Any losses of surface water will decrease water depth 

and the wetted perimeter of aquatic habitat. A decrease in the wetted perimeter and depth of a 

stream is a loss of fish habitat. These losses would also reduce the amount of shallow waters, 

crucial habitat for small fishes such as Gila topminnow and young Gila chub. We also anticipate 

that reduced flow volumes resulting from groundwater withdrawal could result in increased 

summer water temperatures (Barlow and Leake 2012) and thus reductions in dissolved oxygen 

content (oxygen solubility is inversely related to water temperature). The proposed action will 

result in groundwater drawdowns and surface water reductions that will have varying magnitudes 

of effects to surface water quantity and quality and, as stated above, these effects are in addition 

to regional groundwater withdrawals. 
263

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Reduced water availability may also indirectly result in changes in riparian communities. We do 

not anticipate sudden mortality of vegetation, rather a gradual transition from more mesic to 

more xeric species assemblages in some areas. These changes to riparian vegetation can 

negatively affect bank stability, shading and cover, sediment transport, and water temperature. 

These impacts are discussed in greater detail within the Effects to Riparian Ecosystems section 

of this BO. 

These modeled decreases in groundwater elevation would occur over a long time, but could 

cause changes in aquatic and riparian vegetation extent or health, and the reduction in stream 

flow could impact Gila chub and designated critical habitat (e.g., lower water level, more 

extensive dry reaches). As a result of groundwater drawdown, the amount or volume of water 

within perennial pools would decrease, and Gila chub in Cienega show a preference for pools. 

Reduced in-stream vegetative cover could result in reduced substrate for eggs, for prey, and 

escape cover for Gila chub, hence reducing the hatching rate of eggs, reducing food, and 

increasing the exposure of Gila chub to predation and desiccation. Changes in water volume and 

flow, and extent of flow could have similar effects, in addition to loss of habitat. Another 

indirect effect on Gila chub could also result from prey species being negatively impacted by 

groundwater drawdown, hence altering predator-prey relationships. If any changes to 

streamflow occur during normal low flows (May and June), impacts to fishes would be most 

significant. One day of no flow could potentially extirpate fish from a stream reach, though 

refugia would likely be present. More problematic would be extended no-flow, where refugia 

would be few or nonexistent. These effects may occur at upper and lower Cienega Creek, Mattie 

Canyon, and Empire Gulch. Lastly, these impacts would be amplified during exceptionally dry 

years that are expected to increasingly occur with continuing drought and climate change 

(Overpeck et al. 2012).

Regional impacts to groundwater quality and surface water runoff quality that could make it into 

perennial streams is not likely under the Aquifer Protection Permit. The cone of depression 

associated with the mine pit is predicted to capture water contaminants and prevent their 

movement to streams in the action area. Therefore, no impacts to Gila chub or designated 

critical habitat are expected to occur given the information in the various BAs. As stated in the 

Environmental Baseline section, above, Gila chub occur in Cienega Creek and 22.9 mi (37 km) 

miles of the mainstem and tributaries (Mattie Canyon and Empire Gulch) are designated as 

critical habitat. 

The lack of information on the effects of with- and post-project water quality in the BA makes it 

difficult for us to analyze water quality issues as they relate to biological systems. Rosemont 

Copper (2012), however, summarizes baseline water quality and models the proposed action’s 

anticipated impacts. In brief, Rosemont Copper (2012) anticipates that surface runoff will meet 

Aquifer Water Quality Standards. Tetra Tech (2010) analyzed the potential for the project to 

exceed Surface Water Quality Standards and found that the proposed action was unlikely to 

cause an exceedance of these standards in downstream areas of Davidson Canyon wash and, 

therefore, lower Cienega Creek. We cannot ascertain if the water quality standards established 

by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality are protective of Gila chub, as the specific 

levels have not been set yet (ADEQ 2012). 
264

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Gardner Canyon 

Gardner Canyon is anticipated to experience regional aquifer drawdowns of < 0.1 foot from the 

cessation of mining until 50 years later (or up to 0.15 foot at 50 years) (see Gardner/Cienega 

Confluence data in Table A-5). At 150 years after mining, the effect to Gardner Canyon 

increases to 0.2 foot (or up to 0.35 foot) and reaches 0.5 foot at 1,000 years. 

Impacts are expected to be negligible and immeasurable to groundwater at lower Gardner 

Canyon until at least 130 years after mine closure, at which time groundwater drawdown is 

modeled to be 0.8 ft (Tetra Tech 2010c). Groundwater drawdown would likely reduce spring 

and surface flow. The greatest effect to Gila chub from impacts to Gardner Canyon would be 

reduced surface or subsurface flows propagating downstream to both upper and then lower 

Cienega Creek (see discussion below). 

Empire Gulch 

The proposed action will appreciably affect Empire Gulch. The Upper Empire Gulch Springs 

data in Table A-5 in the Effects to Aquatic Ecosystems section displays the drawdowns modeled 

by Tetra Tech (2010); effects at this site to range from 0.1 foot (or up to 0.2 foot) of groundwater 

drawdown upon cessation of mining to 0.2 foot (or up to 0.5 foot) at 20 years, 0.5 (up to 1.8 foot) 

foot at 50 years, 2.5 feet (up to 5.0 foot) at 150 years, and 6 feet at 1,000 years. The spring-fed 

hydrology (Bodner and Simms 2008) of Empire Gulch render it particularly vulnerable to 

diminishment of the groundwater that may sustain the springs. 

The modeled groundwater drawdown, would reduce the amount or volume of water in Empire 

Gulch itself, including perennial pools. This would impact the PCEs of water quantity and 

vegetative cover present within critical habitat there. However, since Gila chub are not known to 

occur in Empire Gulch, impacts to individual chub are not likely. Also, as long as Chiricahua 

leopard frogs occur at the headspring, it is very unlikely that Gila chub would be intentionally 

released there, as chub can prey on frog tadpoles and eggs. 

It is possible, given the long time of the proposed action that Gila chub could naturally move into 

Empire Gulch. In that event, indirect effects on Gila chub habitat could impact breeding and 

foraging within these areas. These impacts would be more likely to occur near the confluence 

with Cienega Creek, which is expected to have less groundwater drawdown than the Empire 

Gulch headspring, and is closer to source populations in Cienega Creek. 

Upper Cienega Creek 

Upper Cienega Creek is that portion of the stream in Reaches 1, 2, and 3 (the latter includes the 

narrows) (see Figure A-1 in the Effects to Aquatic Ecosystems section). Gardner Canyon and 

Empire Gulch, along with Mattie Canyon, are the major tributaries in this reach. 
265

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

The USGS Cienega Creek stream gage (0948550) is situated near the narrows in the upstream 

portion of Reach 3 (see Figure A-1). Regional groundwater drawdowns at this site describe the 

effects to upper Cienega Creek. Tetra Tech (2010) modeled drawdowns of <0.1 foot from the 

end of mining and at 20, and 50 years later (or up to 0.15 foot at 50 years). Drawdowns reach 

0.25 feet (or up to 0.35 foot) and 0.5 feet at 150 and 1,000 years, respectively. Table A-2 in the 

Effects to Aquatic Ecosystems section is based on SWCA (2012) and describes the hydrologic 

effects to upper Cienega Creek. The effects don’t manifest until 1,000 years after the cessation 

of mining, but at that point a 0.16-mile decrease in wetted stream length, a 0.02 cubic foot per 

second loss of discharge, and 51 acre-feet per annum of lost riparian evapotranspiration are 

predicted. Indirect effects to Gila chub, such as groundwater drawdowns and changes in riparian 

community composition, are reasonably certain to occur within the action area in upper Cienega 

Creek. 

Davidson Canyon Wash 

Barrel Canyon is a tributary to Davidson Canyon Wash. Barrel Canyon, in which Gila chub do 

not occur, will be primarily affected by the reduced runoff that will result from the placement of 

mine tailings in its upper watershed, rather than by drawdowns in the aquifer beneath the stream. 

SWCA (2012) estimated that ephemeral surface runoff yield in Barrel Canyon will be reduced 

from between 17.2 to 45.8 percent; the former value is associated with the Barrel Alternative (the 

proposed action). SWCA (2012) further extrapolated that this 17.2 percent reduction would 

equate to a 4.3 percent reduction of runoff 12 miles downstream in the lower reaches (2, 3, and 

4) of Davidson Canyon Wash. Peak flows will also be affected; by 22 percent at the Highway 83 

Bridge and an extrapolated 5.6 percent in Davidson Canyon Wash. 

As stated in the Effects to Aquatic Ecosystems section, the uppermost reaches of Davidson 

Canyon Wash (Reaches 1 and 2) (see Figure A-1) are anticipated to experience minimal 

groundwater drawdowns of <0.01 foot from the cessation of mining to 1,000 years (Tetra Tech 

2012). Reaches 3 and 4 of Davidson Canyon Wash (see Figure A-1) may also be relatively 

unaffected by groundwater drawdowns. Tetra Tech predicted groundwater drawdowns in 

Davidson Canyon Wash at the downstream end of Reach 4 (see the Davidson/Cienega 

Confluence data in Table A-5) of <0.1 foot from 0 to 150 years after mining and 0.1 foot at 1,000 

years (or up to 0.15 foot at 20 years, and 0.2 foot at both 50 and 150 years). 

Lower Cienega Creek 

Lower Cienega Creek includes Reaches 4 and 5 as described in SWCA (2012) (see Figure A-1 in 

the Effects to Aquatic Ecosystems section). Tetra Tech (2010) modeled groundwater 

drawdowns of <0.01 foot at the USGS stream gage in Reach 5 for all time steps from the 

cessation of mining to 1,000 years; this is to be expected at such a relatively large distance from 

the mine pit. 

Lower Cienega Creek, however, will also experience the accumulation of effects of groundwater 

drawdown and surface flow diminishment throughout the affected portion of its watershed. The 

effects to Barrel Canyon, Davidson Canyon Wash, Gardner Canyon, Empire Gulch, and the 
266

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

uppermost reaches of Cienega Creek represent incremental, additive effects to the lower reaches 

of Cienega Creek. 

The Pima Association of Governments (2003b) has estimated that Davidson Canyon Wash 

subflow contributes 8 to 24 percent of the baseflow in Lower Cienega Creek. Given SWCA’s 

finding that Davidson Canyon Wash will experience a 4.3 percent reduction in surface flows 

from the placement of tailings in Barrel Canyon (a tributary) (see above), we anticipate a 0.3 to 

1.0 percent reduction in lower Cienega Creek baseflows. Again, these anticipated reductions are 

to annual yields, and may not describe any reductions in the dry-season baseflows which are 

crucial to conserving Gila chub. 

The minimal reduction in lower Cienega Creek subflow from the Barrel Canyon and Davidson 

Canyon Wash systems will occur in addition to surface flow reductions in other upstream areas 

(see Gardner Canyon, Empire Gulch, and Upper Cienega Creek sections, above as well as in the 

subsequent narrative), the influence of climate change on baseline conditions over time, and the 

effects of cumulative actions. The end result will be an incremental, detrimental effect on 

aquatic ecosystems in lowermost Cienega Creek. 

Peak flow reductions will also result from the proposed action; these were discussed in the 

Effects to Aquatic Ecosystems section. We cannot ascertain the precise effect that reduced peak 

flows from Barrel Canyon (modeled to be 22 percent) and thence Davidson Canyon Wash 

(extrapolated to be 5.6 percent) will have on lower Cienega Creek (see Effects to Aquatic 

Ecosystems section). It is reasonable to assume the effects will be appreciably less than 5.6 

percent, as flood flow hydrology will remain largely intact in the eastern portions of the Cienega 

Creek watershed (including Empire Gulch, Gardner Canyon, and Mattie Canyon). 

We note, however, that peak flows are responsible for the movement of sediment. A small 

reduction in sediment transport has been modeled for Davidson Canyon and Cienega Creek 

below their confluence (SWCA 2012), but is not anticipated to have a large effect given the 

remaining, unaffected sediment supply present within channels and tributaries (Rosemont 

Copper Company 2012). There may nevertheless be interactions between the expected changes 

in both peak flow hydrology and available sediment supply (Simon et al. 2007), making it 

difficult to predict future changes in sediment-related channel geometry. We note that Rosemont 

Copper Company (2012) predicts a slight narrowing in channel top width. This seems 

reasonable, given that any reduction in the magnitude of peak flows will affect floods of all 

return intervals, including the approximately 1.5-year return interval events that constitute 

channel-forming flows (Rosgen 1994, Moody et al. 2003). It is not clear if the modeled change 

in sediment and the channel narrowing will affect Gila chub positively or negatively; effects will 

depend on multiple variables (e.g. timing, quantity, amount of flow in Barrel Canyon, Davidson 

Canyon Wash, and ultimately, the Gila chub habitat (and critical habitat) in Cienega Creek. 

Gila chub have been recorded in Reach 5 of Cienega Creek (below the confluence with Davidson 

Canyon); there appears to be suitable habitat and it is designated critical habitat, and there is a 

nearby source population of Gila chub upstream. Therefore, it is reasonably certain that Gila 

chub will occur during the timeframe of the action. Thus, even though effects are expected to be 
267

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

minimal in this area, effects may begin during mine operation, and continue for 1,000 years. 

Any loss of flow, wetted perimeter, and pool depth is an effect on Gila chub. 

The groundwater modeling results do not discuss the potential for groundwater drawdowns to 

occur at Mattie Canyon; the site is outside of the 5-foot drawdown perimeter discussed in SWCA 

(2012). However, since lower Mattie Canyon is close to the stream gage, drawdown at the gage 

may also occur in the groundwater system associated with the tributary. As stated, Tetra Tech 

(2010) predicted groundwater drawdowns at the Cienega Creek gauge of 0.25 foot (or up to 0.35 

foot) 150 years after mine closure and 0.5 foot (or up to 0.5 foot) 1,000 years after mine closure. 

Reductions of groundwater at Mattie Canyon may be slightly less than at the gage because 

Mattie Canyon is slightly further from the mine pit, and east of Cienega Creek. However, a 

reduction in groundwater that reduces surface flow and subflow, will affect Gila chub and 

critical habitat in Mattie Canyon as is discussed above. 

Analyses undertaken by Westland Resources (2012) but not included in the three iterations of the 

BA or in SWCA (2012) correlated extent of surface flow in lower Cienega Creek with depth-togroundwater in adjacent wells. Their results, partially based on averages in June, show there 

would be small decreases (<2% of average) in length of streamflow. Also, the extent of 

streamflow and proportional reduction in extent of streamflow could be greater than two percent 

in drier times. 

Effect of the Proposed Conservation Measures – Gila Chub 

The proposed action contains many conservation measures. Rosemont has agreed to monitor 

changes in groundwater and surface water quantity and quality and to update both groundwater 

and surface water models based on data obtained from monitoring efforts. Tracking what occurs 

with surface and groundwater will be crucial for determining any effects of the mine on water, 

and subsequently to species dependent on that water. The BA contained no additional 

conservation measures if monitoring shows groundwater drawdown greater than what was 

modeled. If this were to occur, reinitiation of consultation would likely be necessary. 

Because the effects of the action to Gila chub will be long-term and off-site, conservation 

measures can only be realized off-site. The two conservations measures discussed below are 

outside the footprint of the mine, though one is in the action area. Other than the monitoring 

mentioned above, two conservation measures should promote conservation and recovery of Gila 

chub. A full description of the conservation measures can be found in the proposed action 

section of this BO. 

The Cienega Creek Watershed Conservation Fund will fund $200,000 a year for 10 years for 

development and implementation of measures intended to preserve and enhance aquatic and 

riparian ecosystems and the federally listed aquatic and riparian species that depend on them. 

Projects may include surveys for and the removal of non-native species in the watershed. Funds 

can be used for restoration activities and adaptive management. Rosemont will acquire and close 

one well near the diversion dam in lower Cienega Creek. Also, Rosemont will acquire over 1100 

af of water rights, and transfer and sever and transfer them for conservation purposes. 
268

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

About 825 acre feet (af) annually will be used for aquifer recharge below Pantano Dam, either 

through an approved ILF mitigation program or through a “managed underground storage 

facility (MUSF)” permitted through the Arizona Department of Water Resources. This will 

allow surface water flows currently diverted for golf course irrigation to be captured and 

discharged back to the streambed below the Pantano Dam within the Cienega Creek Natural 

Preserve. Flow will be captured at the existing in-channel grated diversion, and then released 

into the stream channel below the dam. Gila topminnow and longfin dace have been observed 

right above the dam, on the dam, and in the scour pool below the dam. It is certain that fish have 

been and will continue to go into the diversion, and suffer death or injury. Though Gila chub 

have not been found within several miles, the possibility exists given the time-frame of analysis 

and the mitigating effects of Cienega Creek Watershed Conservation Fund before groundwater 

drawdown impacts lower Cienega Creek. The City of Tucson and Pima County (2009) expect 

that up to 3000 linear feet of riparian and aquatic habitat would form. Whether or not that 

habitat is suitable for chub, given the reduced stream gradient below the dam, remains to be seen. 

There would at least be a pool below the dam. The actions taken under this conservation 

measure should enhance the resiliency and suitability of Cienega Creek for Gila chub, especially 

in the lower creek, at least in the short-term. Under the threat of continuing long-term drought 

and climate change, enhancing system resiliency is a key component for adapting to climate 

change and reducing its affects (Overpeck et al. 2012). 

Also, Rosemont will purchase about 1,200 acres of land along Sonoita Creek (Sonoita Creek 

Ranch) with about 590 af of certificated surface water rights from Monkey Spring. This is near 

Patagonia, and outside of the action area. It is anticipated that the land will be transferred either 

to a Corps-approved ILF program sponsor or to a conservation entity for long-term management 

of the property. In addition, unless an ILF program is developed, Rosemont will fund $150,000 

a year for 10 years for resource management. An additional $100,000 ($20,000 annually for five 

years) will be provided for management against nonnative species, generally in the two existing 

ponds on the property that are maintained with water from Monkey Spring. At a minimum Gila 

chub and Gila topminnow will be established in the ponds after nonnatives are removed from 

them. Because this parcel is outside of the action area, this action represents recovery in lieu of 

threat removal (FWS 1994). The environmental baseline and recovery status of Gila chub 

should be improved by actions taken at Sonoita Creek Ranch. Also, the source of Monkey 

Spring appears to be the regional aquifer, which should be somewhat buffered from local 

groundwater pumping and climate change. The Cienega Creek Watershed Fund and Sonoita 

Creek Ranch conservation measures are essential to offset expected effects to Gila chub and their 

habitat. 

Summary of Effects – Gila Chub 

 Groundwater levels have historically been variable, but in a downward trend; 

 The environmental baseline shows increasing trends in water use in parts of the action 

area; 
269

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

 The current extended drought and climate change are highly likely to negatively impact 

many system components from the upper parts of the watershed to where Cienega Creek 

becomes Pantano Wash through: 

o Changes in upland vegetation and fire regime; 

o Higher ambient and water temperatures; 

o Increased variability in stream hydrographs; 

o More frequent severe climatic events (such as storms, droughts, wildlfires, etc.); 

 The proposed conservation measures will not preclude all anticipated effects to surface 

water from occurring; 

 The proposed conservation measures at Sonoita Creek Ranch will allow conservation in 

lieu of threat removal; 

 Impacts to groundwater, and thus surface water, are reasonably certain to occur in 

designated critical habitat and areas occupied by Gila chub, and thus will negatively 

affect Gila chub; and 

 Impacts to wetted stream perimeter and water depth are anticipated to occur well after 

mine closure (50-150 or more years after closure). 

Cumulative Effects – Gila Chub 

Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, tribal, local or private actions that are 

reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this biological opinion. Future 

Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section 

because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act. 

In 1991, the American Fisheries Society adopted a position Statement regarding cumulative 

effects of small modifications to fish habitat (Burns 1991). Though the American Fisheries 

Society use of the term “cumulative” differs from the definition in the ESA, the statement 

concludes that accumulation of, and interaction between, localized or small impacts, often from 

unrelated human actions, pose a serious threat to fishes. 

Unregulated activities on Federal and non-Federal lands, such as trespass livestock, inappropriate 

use of OHVs, illegal introduction of nonindigenous aquatic species, and residential and 

commercial development on lands within watersheds containing threatened and endangered 

aquatic animals, are cumulative effects and can adversely affect the species through a variety of 

avenues. 

Other activities, such as recreation, are increasing. Increasing recreational, residential, or 

commercial use of non-Federal lands near or within the contributing watersheds of the riparian 

areas would likely result in increased cumulative adverse effects to occupied, as well as 

potentially-occupied native aquatic animal habitat through increased water use, increased 

pollution, increased movement of nonindigenous species, and increased alteration of the stream 

banks through riparian vegetation suppression, bank trampling, changing flow regimes, and 

erosion. We note that recreation use on Federal lands is not a cumulative effect and that much of 

the stream frontage along Cienega Creek is in Federal (BLM) ownership. Recreational use of 

Pima County lands, while restricted, is also a cumulative effect. Lastly, the right-of-way 
270

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

vegetatation maintenance activities conducted by Tucson Electric Power, which result in nearlycomplete removal of riparian vegetation in the affected area (Pima County Regional Flood 

Control District 2009), are also a cumulative effect. 

Cumulative effects to native aquatic animals include ongoing activities in the watersheds in 

which the species occurs such as livestock grazing and associated activities outside of Federal 

allotments, irrigated agriculture, groundwater pumping, stream diversion, bank stabilization, 

channelization without a Federal nexus, and recreation. Some of these activities, such as 

irrigated agriculture, are declining and are not expected to contribute substantially to cumulative 

long-term adverse effects to native aquatic animals. 

There are many conservation actions being considered by the AGFD for native fish and frogs in 

the Santa Cruz River basin. Two important conservation actions are the approved Safe Harbor 

Agreements for the Chiricahua leopard frog and the topminnow and pupfish. While these two 

agreements and any other conservation actions taken by AGFD are likely to be federally funded 

or approved, it is likely some of them will have no Federal nexus. 

The U.S. Census predicts that Arizona will be the second fastest growing state in the country 

through 2030, adding an additional 5.6 million people (U.S. Census 2005). During the 2010 

Census, Arizona maintained its standing as having the second fastest population growth rate by 

growing more than 20 percent between 2000 and 2010 (Pollard and Mather 2010). If these 

predictions hold true, already severe threats to Gila chub and its habitat will worsen, primarily 

due to increased human demand for surface and ground water and decreased supply. Water 

demands will increase as the population increases. Most of Arizona’s developed areas’ 

groundwater is pumped out faster than the aquifer can recharge (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 2011). Groundwater pumping is likely to be the greatest impact cumulatively, since it is 

minimally regulated by the State. 

Additionally, the majority of the lands in the Cienega Corridor are Arizona State Trust Lands, 

most of which are currently leased for cattle grazing. The Arizona State Constitution mandates 

that State Trust Lands produce the maximum economic benefit for the beneficiaries of the Trust, 

most of which are school districts. One of the primary ways in which the State Land Department 

raises funds is to auction its Trust Lands for commercial or residential development (Hanson and 

Brott 2005). Activities on residential and commercial inholdings within watersheds containing 

Gila chub can adversely affect the species through poor land management practices and water 

withdrawal. These effects have not been well quantified within the action area. 

Conclusion – Gila Chub 

After reviewing the current status of the Gila chub, the environmental baseline for the action 

area, the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is the FWS’s biological 

opinion that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Gila 

chub. Pursuant to 50 CFR 402.02, “jeopardize the continued existence of” means to engage in an 

action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the 

likelihood of both survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the 
271

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species. We present this conclusion for the 

following reasons: 

1. No direct effects from operation of the mine are expected; 

2. Rosemont will monitor groundwater drawdown and the USFS will compare observed 

drawdown to modeled drawdown. Groundwater drawdown greater than modeled may 

require reinitiation of section 7 consultation; 

3. The Cienega Creek Watershed Conservation Fund will, for the short-term at least, protect 

and potentially increase habitat for Gila chub by funding actions management and 

restoration actions in the watershed, protecting water rights, and creating habitat; 

4. The Cienega Creek Watershed Conservation Fund is likely to increase ecosystem 

resiliency in the face of the expected groundwater drawdown from Rosemont Mine, and 

impacts from climate change; 

5. The severance and transfer downstream senior water rights to upstream reaches of 

Cienega Creek is proposed to occur by no later than January 1, 2016. If successfully 

executed, these in situ water rights may be employed to protect against future diversions 

of surface water by junior appropriators. 

6. The Sonoita Creek Ranch will create new habitat for Gila chub from a reliable water 

source (Monkey Spring); 

7. The Cienega Creek Watershed Fund and Sonoita Creek Ranch conservation measures are 

essential to offset expected effects to Gila chub and their habitat; 

8. Indirect effects from groundwater drawdown are difficult to predict at the distances from 

the drawdown (Rosemont Mine), and over a long time (1,000 years); 

9. Groundwater drawdown is not expected to be less than 0.25 ft at all of the modeled 

locations within and upstream of Gila chub habitat until 150 years after mine closure; and 

10. Conservation and recovery actions have taken place since species listing, continue to 

occur, with more actions in planning. Therefore, we believe the status of the species is 

improving. 

11. The magnitude of the proposed action’s effects and the implementation of conservation 

measures (as described in Conclusions 2 - 6 above), mean that the recovery potential of 

Gila chub and the species critical habitat will not be diminished. 

Based on the above analyses and summary, it is the FWS’s biological opinion that the proposed 

action will not alter the ability of this CH to retain its PCEs and to function properly. As such, 

Gila chub designated Critical Habitat (CH) will remain functional to serve its intended 

conservation role for the species. Therefore, we conclude that the proposed action is not likely to 

destroy or adversely modify Gila chub designated CH nor affect its role in recovery of the 

species. 

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT – GILA CHUB 

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act, prohibit take of 

endangered or threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. “Take” is defined as 

to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage 

in any such conduct. “Harm” is further defined to include significant habitat modification or 
272

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral 

patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. “Harass” is defined in the regulations as ``an 

intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by 

annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, 

but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR §17.3). Incidental take is defined 

as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. 

Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not 

intended as part of the proposed action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the Act 

provided such taking is in compliance with this Incidental Take Statement. 

The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be included by the USFS as 

binding conditions of any grant or permit issued to the applicant, as appropriate, for the 

exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The USFS has a continuing duty to regulate the activity 

that is covered by this Incidental Take Statement. If the USFS (1) fails to assume and implement 

the terms and conditions, or (2) fails to require the applicant to adhere to the terms and conditions 

of this incidental take statement through enforceable terms that are added to the permit or grant 

document, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to monitor the impact 

of incidental take, the USFS, or the applicant must report the progress of the action and its impact 

on the species as specified in the Incidental Take Statement (see 50 CFR 402.14(I)(3)). 

Amount or Extent of Take Anticipated – Gila Chub 

We anticipate that the proposed action will result in incidental take of Gila chub. Any reduction 

in stream discharge resulting from groundwater drawdowns attributable to the proposed action 

will reduce the extent and/or quality of aquatic habitat required by Gila chub; we are thus 

reasonably certain that take will occur. 

Incidental take of Gila chub in Cienega Creek will be difficult to detect for the following 

reasons: population levels cannot be accurately described with existing information and 

techniques, dead animals are difficult to find, cause of death may be difficult to determine, and 

losses may be masked by seasonal fluctuations in numbers or other causes. The incidental take 

is expected to be in the form of harm through the loss of habitat from groundwater drawdown, 

and harm, harassment, and mortality from water diversion and management at Pantano Dam. 

We recognize that providing a numerical estimate of incidental take is the preferred method of 

measuring take and that for some animals this method is biologically defensible as the ecology of 

the animal lends itself to them being more detectible (e.g., long-lived, territorial species such as 

the desert tortoise). However, it is impossible to quantify the number of individual Gila chub 

taken because: (1) dead or impaired individuals are almost impossible to find (and are readily 

consumed by scavengers and predators) and losses may be masked by seasonal fluctuations in 

environmental conditions; (2) the status of the species will change over time through disease, 

natural population variation, natural habitat loss, or the active creation of habitat through 

management; and (3) the species is small-bodied, well camouflaged, and occurs under water of 

varying clarity. 
273

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Gila chub are subject to an existing monitoring program in the Cienega Creek watershed on the 

Las Cienegas NCA. The currently used sampling techniques, however, do not result in 

population estimates, only relative abundance as catch-per-unit-effort. The sampling techniques 

used on Las Cienegas NCA are only sensitive enough to be statistically significant if the 

population doubles or is halved (Bodner et al. 2007). Monitoring in reaches downstream from 

the NCA (Marsh and Kesner 2011) is similarly unsuited to determining population trends. Gila 

chub population estimates can theoretically be acquired, but are difficult, time consuming, 

stressful to the fish (to the point of harm), and expensive. In addition, the number of Gila chub 

in any population are normally extremely variable during a year due to an r-selected (high 

fecundity, short generation time, wide dispersal of offspring) reproductive strategy, common in 

highly variable environments such as desert streams. 

It is reasonable to assume that the abundance of Gila chub is correlated with the extent of 

suitable aquatic habitat provided by surface flows in the affected streams (see Status of the 

Species and Critical Habitat within the Action Area section). Baseflows maintain stream 

discharge when surface runoff is low or nonexistent, and these baseflows result from 

groundwater discharge. The discharge of groundwater to springs and streams is related to the 

elevation and gradient that regional groundwater exhibits relative to those surface waters. 

Decreases in groundwater elevation affect this gradient and thus, reduce the discharge of 

groundwater to streams (see Effects to Aquatic Ecosystems section). Groundwater elevations, 

which can be readily measured, are therefore effective surrogate measures for the incidental take 

of Gila chub. 

The Effects to Aquatic Ecosystems and Effects to Riparian Ecosystems sections of this BO as 

well as the analysis of effects for the Gila chub, above, discuss the relationship between the 

proposed action, changes in groundwater elevation, and the volume and length of surface flow in 

streams. Changes in groundwater elevation have been modeled (Montgomery and Associates 

2012, Myers 2010, and Tetra Tech 2012), and are summarized in Table A-5 in the Effects to 

Aquatic Ecosystems section. This document’s analyses were based primarily on the drawdowns 

modeled by Tetra Tech (2010), including the results of sensitivity analyses. Sensitivity analysis 

is explained in the Effects to Aquatic Ecosystems section above, and is summarized, below. 

The changes in groundwater elevation will result in reduced wetted lengths and volumes in 

reaches of stream maintained by discharges from the regional aquifer; surface flow effects are 

summarized in Tables A-2, A-3, and A-4 in the Effects to Aquatic Ecosystems section. 

Westland (2012) determined that there could be some reductions in the wetted length of lower 

Cienega Creek from groundwater drawdowns over the long term. We also anticipate that 

reduced flow volumes could result in increased summer water temperatures (Barlow and Leake 

2012) and thus reductions in dissolved oxygen content (oxygen solubility is inversely related to 

water temperature), thus further adversely affecting (Bodner et al. 2007) the already-reduced 

numbers of Gila chub that would remain. 

Therefore, the take of Gila chub is expressed in terms of the drawdowns noted in the locations 

and time frames (0, 20, 50, 150, and 1,000 years) discussed in analysis of the effects to the 

species, above, which are: (1) the Gardner/Cienega Confluence, representing effects to Gardner 
274

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Canyon; (2) Empire Gulch Springs, representing effects to Empire Gulch; (3) USGS stream gage 

No. 09484550, representing effects to upper Cienega Creek; (4) the Davidson/Cienega 

Confluence, representing effects to Davidson Canyon Wash; and (5) USGS stream gage No. 

09484560 , representing effects to lower Cienega Creek. Further, take is expressed as the upper 

limits of the sensitivity analyses as this potentially larger drawdown was considered in the 

Effects of the Action section for Gila chub. The groundwater modeling involved the creation of 

a number of scenarios, each scenario using different modeling parameters (e.g. varying amounts 

of recharge, differing transmissivities, etc.). Each individual parameter was varied within a 

reasonable range of values. This suite of modeling scenarios known as the sensitivity analysis 

(in other words, determining which variables have the greatest influence on the model results). 

Out of the suite of modeling scenarios, only one was considered the “best-fit”, or baseline, 

modeling scenario. The range of predicted drawdown from the rest of the modeling scenarios, 

however, is still considered possible or reasonable, though not as likely to occur. Since the entire 

range of results was considered in the Effects of the Proposed Action section for this species, 

take is expressed as the largest of the predicted drawdowns. Table GC-3, below, displays the 

anticipated amount or extent of take. 

Table GC-3: Anticipated amount or extent of take for the Gila chub, based on Tetra Tech (2010, as referenced 

in SWCA 2012) and Table A-5 in the Effects to Aquatic Ecosystems section.

Location

Maximum anticipated post-mining

groundwater drawdown (in feet) by year1

0 20 50 150 1,000

Gardner/Cienega Confluence <0.1 <0.1 0.15 0.35 0.5

Upper Empire Gulch Springs 0.1 0.5 1.8 5.0 6.0

Upper Cienega Creek near stream gage No. 09484550 <0.1 <0.1 0.15 0.35 0.5

Davidson/Cienega Confluence <0.1 0.15 0.2 0.2 0.1

Lower Cienega Creek near stream gage No. 09484560 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

1 Drawdowns described as less than 0.1 foot would be exceeded if they met or exceeded 0.1 foot.

The sites and time frames which appear in Tables GC-3 (above) and A-5 (in the Effects to 

Aquatic Ecosystems section), and are referred to throughout this BO’s effects analyses, represent 

groundwater model outputs at locations and times of interest to biological resources. It is 

recognized, however, that the sites currently lack observation wells; groundwater elevations 

cannot be monitored at these locations. Moreover, these sites are proximal to streams and will 

experience confounding influences from recharge by runoff, riparian ET, and drought, rendering 

the sites relatively unsuited for groundwater monitoring – and unsuited for determining cause 

and effect relationships for hydrologic changes - even if wells were emplaced. It is also 

recognized that the time intervals for the reported drawdowns (0, 20, 50, 150, and 1,000 years 

post-mining) are not meaningful for monitoring take; the intervals are too infrequent and become 

even less frequent over time. The groundwater model, however, can be run such that drawdowns 

at any location within its domain (such as where groundwater monitoring wells have been or will 

be placed; see Table GC-4, below) and at any desired time interval can be determined (USGS 

1997). Given that the drawdowns at alternative sites displayed in Table GT-4 (appropriate 

locations for monitoring wells) would be derived from the same model that resulted in the 

anticipated levels of take at the sites described in Table GC-3, the alternative sites can serve as 

directly-comparable proxies for the key locations noted in Table GC-3. 
275

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

We also note that fluctuations in groundwater elevation can vary daily and seasonally from 

environmental factors. These daily fluctuations have the potential to exceed the smaller 

magnitude groundwater drawdowns displayed in table GC-3 (particularly those ≤0.1 foot). 

During the initial implementation phase (site construction, early pit construction) there is an 

opportunity to monitor daily and seasonal groundwater fluctuations for 2 to 4 years - under 

background conditions - before the anticipated effects from the pit dewatering are realized. The 

results from this initial monitoring will help determine the degree of background (baseline) 

variation in the observed groundwater elevations prior to the realization of Rosemont’s effects. 

The data will also assist in discerning the groundwater drawdown attributable to the pit from 

unrelated environmental factors. 

The USFS (2013b) has provided a list of well sites, already subject to monitoring for various 

environmental compliance purposes (see Monitoring Measure FS-BR-24 in the October 25, 

2013, draft of Appendix B, the definitive version of which will appear in the Final EIS) that are 

likely to be suitable for monitoring the surrogate measure of incidental take (groundwater 

drawdown). The wells are located east of the crest of the Santa Rita Mountains, between the 

mine pit and Cienega Creek and Davidson Canyon Wash. Monitoring of some or all of these 

wells as proxies (for groundwater drawdown at the key locations in Table GC-3) will allow take 

of Gila Chub to be monitored immediately and during the active life of the mine, rather than 

waiting decades or centuries that it is modeled to take measurable drawdown to reach the 

affected streams, Cienega Creek and Empire Gulch. This suite of potential alternative 

monitoring sites has been reproduced in Table GC-4, below. 

Table GC-4: Potential groundwater monitoring wells for compliance with the surrogate measure of incidental take 

(groundwater drawdown) described in Table GC-3, above. Groundwater drawdowns at a suite of these sites – once 

modeled and analyzed for their degree of natural variation – will serve as proxies for the drawdowns in Table GC-3.

Well Name Direction from Mine Pit Approximate Distance from Mine Pit (miles)

Potential Gardner Canyon monitoring wells to serve as a proxy for the Gardner/Cienega Confluence

HC-6 S 0.5

17bdb SE 3

RP-5 SSE 1.2

18ddb SSE 3.2

16cbb SE 3.4

Rosemont Ranch SE 3.8

Potential Empire Gulch monitoring wells to serve as a proxy for Empire Gulch Springs

DH-1541 ESE 2.6

Oaktree Windmill ESE 4.1

Potential Davidson Canyon Wash monitoring wells to serve as a proxy for the Davidson/Cienega Confluence

C-1 NE 0.5

HC-5B NNE 0.6

P-899 NE 1

HC-4B NE 1.6

RP-2C ENE 2.5

RP-6 NE 3.8

RP-7 NE 4.5
276

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Potential Cienega Creek monitoring wells to serve as proxies for Upper and Lower Cienega Creek

RP-3B E 1.5

RP-9 E 3.4

RP-8 ENE 4.5

In summary, and stated differently, the maximum allowable incidental take of Gila chub is 

represented by the surrogate measure of groundwater drawdowns at the sites and time intervals 

stated in Table GC-3, above. The to-be-modeled groundwater drawdowns at a suite of potential 

sites appearing in Table GC-4, above, will serve as proxies for the incidental take at the sites in 

Table GC-3. The manner by which Rosemont and the USFS shall monitor compliance with the 

amount of incidental take is described further in the Terms and Conditions, below. 

Effect of the Take – Gila Chub 

In this BO, the FWS determined that this level of anticipated take is not likely to result in 

jeopardy to the Gila chub. 

Reasonable and Prudent Measures – Gila Chub 

The FWS believes the following reasonable and prudent measures are necessary and appropriate 

to minimize impacts of incidental take of Gila chub: 

1. Rosemont shall monitor groundwater levels (as a surrogate for take of Gila chub) at least 

annually; 

2. Rosemont shall apply the funds identified for the Cienega Creek Watershed Fund and 

Sonoita Creek Ranch conservation measures solely to the identified conservation projects.

Terms and Conditions – Gila Chub 

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, Rosemont and the USFS 

must comply with the following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and 

prudent measures described above and outline required reporting/monitoring requirements. 

These terms and conditions are non-discretionary. 

1.1 Rosemont and the USFS shall select a representative group of the observation wells 

found in Table GC-4, above (USFS 2013b) at which groundwater levels, a surrogate for 

take of Gila chub, shall be monitored. Once the wells have been selected, Rosemont shall 

re-run the Tetra Tech (2010) groundwater model to obtain groundwater drawdowns 

(including sensitivity analyses) at all of the well sites. The time intervals shall be each 

year through closure of the mine, and thereafter, every 5 years. Monitoring will continue 

postclosure for a duration determined to be necessary by FWS and USFS based on data 

gathered during implementation and input from the team described in Term and 

Condition 1.5, below. 
277

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

1.2 At the time construction of the mine commences (and prior to pit excavation), Rosemont 

shall initiate monitoring of the selected groundwater wells and report the results annually 

to the USFS and FWS through closure of the mine. Monitoring will continue postclosure 

for a duration determined to be necessary by FWS and USFS based on data gathered 

during implementation and input from the team described in Term and Condition 1.5, 

below. 

1.3 During the initial implementation phase (site construction and early pit construction), 

Rosemont shall monitor the wells daily (or via continuous data collection devices) to 

determine the magnitude of daily and seasonal groundwater fluctuations prior to the onset 

of the anticipated effects of pit dewatering. The results from initial monitoring will help 

determine if and to what degree observed groundwater elevations vary due to natural 

fluctuations (baseline conditions). The magnitude of the observed fluctuations shall 

accompany the model results from Term and Condition 1.1 which will then be reported to 

the USFS and FWS. 

1.4 Rosemont and the USFS shall compare the results of the monitoring described in Term 

and Condition 1.2 to the groundwater model results described in Term and Condition 1.1, 

including the variation noted from implementation of Term and Condition 1.3, and report 

the finding to FWS annually. 

1.5 If it is determined at any time via monitoring that the observed groundwater drawdowns 

exceed the upper bounds of the sensitivity analyses for the modeled groundwater 

drawdowns, including consideration of applicable daily and seasonal fluctuations, then it 

is possible that the take of Gila chub described in Table GC-3 has been exceeded. In this 

event, the USFS shall convene a team consisting of Forest Service staff, FWS, Rosemont 

Copper, USGS, the University of Arizona, and the Bureau of Land Management to seek 

consensus on whether the exceedance can be attributable to Rosemont’s activities and 

thus be considered an exceedance of the take authorized by this Incidental Take 

Statement. If a team cannot be convened or consensus is not reached, the USFS or FWS 

shall make the determination of whether reinitiation of consultation is appropriate. 

2. The funds identified for the Cienega Creek Watershed Fund and Sonoita Creek Ranch 

conservation measures may only be used for projects as described in the Conservation 

Measures subsection of the Description of the Proposed Action Section, above. Indirect 

(overhead) costs must be funded separately. 

Conservation Recommendations – Gila Chub 

Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the 

purposes of the ESA by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and 

threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to 

minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or CH, to help 

implement recovery plans, or to develop information. The FWS recommends the following 

conservation activities:
278

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

1. The Biological Monitor (see Description of the Proposed Conservation Measures) should 

coordinate directly with Rosemont and Rosemont’s consultants on behalf of the Forest 

Service, and also coordinate with the Bureau of Land Management. If a Forest Service 

employee is unable to perform that task, funding should be made available for a BLM 

employee or contractor of BLM’s choosing to coordinate projects that affect resources on 

Public Lands. 

2. We recommend that Rosemont and the eventual owner or manager of Pantano Dam 

consider changing how water is diverted there to reduce fish entrainment. An infiltration 

gallery would be ideal to reduce entrainment; 

3. We recommend that Rosemont and the eventual owner or manager of Sonoita Creek 

Ranch consider changing how water is diverted at Monkey Spring to reduce fish 

entrainment. An infiltration gallery would be ideal to reduce entrainment; 

4. We recommend that the USFS coordinate with the Cienega Watershed Partnership, 

AGFD, the F.R.O.G. Project, and our office in an effort to work with private landowners 

to remove any source populations of nonnative aquatic species from the area; 

5. We recommend that the USFS continue to assist us and the AGFD in conserving and 

recovering the Gila chub; 

6. We recommend that the USFS assist us with the completion and implementation of the 

Gila chub recovery plan; 

7. We recommend that the USFS and Rosemont acquire instream flow water rights to ensure 

perennial flow in streams with Gila chub; 

8. We recommend that the USFS continue to work with the FWS and AGFD to remove 

nonnative species and reestablish Gila chub throughout its historical range in Arizona; 

9. We recommend that the USFS continue fish surveys on National Forest lands to 

determine the extent that other chub, such as the headwater chub (G. nigra), may occupy 

those streams. 

10. We recommend that the USFS continue to work cooperatively with us and AGFD to 

establish populations of Gila chub wherever possible. 

For the FWS to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effect or benefiting 

listed species or their habitats, the FWS requests notification of the implementation of any 

conservation recommendations. 
279

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Status of the Species – Gila Topminnow

Gila topminnow was listed as endangered in 1967 without critical habitat (32 FR 4001). Only 

Gila topminnow populations in the United States, and not in Mexico, are listed under the ESA. 

The reasons for decline of this fish include past dewatering of rivers, springs and marshlands, 

impoundment, channelization, diversion, regulation of flow, land management practices that 

promote erosion and arroyo formation, and the introduction of predacious and competing 

nonnative fishes (Miller 1961, Minckley 1985). Other listed fish suffer from the same impacts 

(Moyle and Williams 1990). Life history information can be found in the 1984 recovery plan 

(USFWS 1984), the draft revised Gila topminnow recovery plan (Weedman 1999), and 

references cited in the plans. 

Gila topminnow are highly vulnerable to adverse effects from nonnative aquatic species 

(Johnson and Hubbs 1989). Predation and competition from nonnative fishes have been a major 

factor in their decline and continue to be a major threat to the remaining populations (Meffe et al. 

1983, Meffe 1985, Brooks 1986, Marsh and Minckley 1990, Stefferud and Stefferud 1994, 

Weedman and Young 1997, Minckley and Marsh 2009). The native fish fauna of the Gila basin 

and of the Colorado basin overall, was naturally depauperate and contained few fish that were 

predatory on or competitive with Gila topminnow (Carlson and Muth 1989). In the riverine 

backwater and side-channel habitats that formed the bulk of Gila topminnow natural habitat, 

predation and competition from other fishes was essentially absent. Thus Gila topminnow did 

not evolve mechanisms for protection against predation or competition and is predator- and 

competitor-naive. Due to the introduction of many predatory and competitive nonnative fish, 

frogs, crayfish, and other species, Gila topminnow could no longer survive in many of their 

former habitats, or the small pieces of those habitats that had not been lost to human alteration. 

Both large (Bestgen and Propst 1989) and small (Meffe et al. 1983) nonnative fish cause 

problems for Gila topminnow as can nonnative crayfish (Fernandez and Rosen 1996) and 

bullfrogs. 

It has long been known and thoroughly documented, that, western mosquitofish Gambusia affinis 

(mosquitofish) has major deleterious effects on individual Gila topminnow and their populations 

(Minckley et al. 1977, Meffe et al. 1983, Minckley et al. 1991, Minckley 1999, Voeltz and 

Bettaso 2003). These publications and others (Miller 1961, Meffe et al. 1982, Duncan 2013) 

have made it abundantly clear that mosquitofish negatively impact topminnow, and documented 

the likely mechanisms responsible (Schoenherr 1974, Meffe 1984, 1985). 

The Sonoran topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis) was listed in 1967. The species was later 

revised to include two subspecies, P. o. occidentalis and P. o. sonoriensis (Minckley 1969, 

1973). P. o. occidentalis was known as the Gila topminnow, and P. o. sonoriensis was known as 

the Yaqui topminnow. P. occidentalis, including both subspecies, was collectively known as the 

Sonoran topminnow. Both subspecies are protected under the ESA. Minckley (1999) stated that 

the Yaqui topminnow and Gila topminnow are separate species named P. sonoriensis and P. 

occidentalis, respectively (Nelson et al. 2006). Other researchers make the same argument 
280

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

(Quattro et al. 1996, Hedrick et al. 2001, Hedrick and Hurt 2012). The name change has not 

been made to 50 CFR 17.11. 

Historically, the Gila topminnow was abundant in the Gila River drainage in Arizona and was 

one of the most common fishes of the Colorado River basin, particularly in the Santa Cruz 

system (Hubbs and Miller 1941). Gila topminnow also were recorded from the Gila River basin 

in New Mexico (Minckley and Marsh 2009). In the last 50 years, they were reduced to only 16 

naturally occurring populations. Presently, only 8 of the 16 known natural Gila topminnow 

populations are considered extant (Table GT-1)(Weedman and Young 1997, Voeltz and Bettaso 

2003, Duncan 2013). There have been at least 200 wild sites stocked with Gila topminnow, 

however, topminnow persist at only 33 of these localities (Table GT-2). Of these, two sites are 

outside topminnow historical range and one contains nonnative fish (Voeltz and Bettaso 2003). 

All of these sites except two are in New Mexico. Many of the reestablished sites are very small 

and may not contain viable populations, as defined in the draft revised recovery plan (Weedman 

1999). In addition several of the 33 sites have been reestablished in the last few years, and their 

eventual disposition is unknown. 

The Sonoran Topminnow Recovery Plan (USFWS 1984) established criteria for down- and delisting. Criteria for down-listing were met for a short period. However, due to concerns 

regarding the status of several populations, down-listing was delayed. 

A draft revised recovery plan for the Gila topminnow is available (Weedman 1999). The plan’s 

short-term (i.e. survival-related) goal is to prevent extirpation of the species from its natural 

range in the US and reestablish it into suitable habitat within historical range. The plan’s longerterm goal (i.e. the reclassification criteria) include quantitative measures of the species 

persistence at a specific number of sites over time. 

The draft revised recovery plan states that, before considering the Gila topminnow for 

reclassification, survival of the species in the U.S. must be ensured according to the following 

criteria: 

I. Remaining natural populations and occupied habitat in the U.S. should be secured. Natural 

populations, as previously identified from the fourteen localities in which extant Gila topminnow 

populations have been found, will be managed as eight metapopulations: 

A. Upper Santa Cruz (Sharp Spring and upper Santa Cruz River in U.S.) 

B. Middle Santa Cruz River (north of Nogales) 

C. Upper Sonoita Creek (Cottonwood Spring and upper Sonoita Creek) 

D. Redrock Canyon 

E. Monkey Spring 

F. Lower Sonoita Creek (Coal Mine and Fresno Canyons and Sonoita Creek below 

Patagonia Lake) 

G. Cienega Creek (population on BLM and State property and one on Cienega Creek 

Preserve) 

H. Bylas Spring Complex (Bylas and Middle springs and Salt Creek) 
281

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

II. The surviving reestablished populations within historical range (Appendix C of the draft 

revised recovery plan) are also considered necessary for the survival of the species. They 

should receive the same protections as natural populations. 

III. Refuge stocks should be maintained for each of the eight natural metapopulations 

(changes may be made to this requirement in the future as new genetic information is 

developed). 

IV. Population monitoring plans as outlined below should be developed and implemented. 

The draft revised recovery plan further states that the Gila topminnow will be considered for 

reclassification as threatened when: 

 

I. Criteria detailed under Survival Criteria (above) have been met to ensure survival; 

II. The eight natural metapopulations (Level 1 populations; levels are described in the draft 

revised recovery plan) are replicated, established, and viable within historical range as 

Level 2 and Level 3 populations as described in Task 2 (below). In addition, mixed 

populations are established as Level 2 and Level 3 populations as identified in Task 2. 

Each of the existing eight natural metapopulations will be replicated in at least four level 

2 sites equaling at least 32 level 2 populations. In addition, at least 20 level 2 populations 

of mixed origin will be established. Level 2 populations will not be considered 

established until they have persisted a minimum of 10 years with little to no human 

intervention. A minimum of 60 level 3 populations are required. Level 3 populations 

count as soon as they are established; 

III. Plans for monitoring populations and their habitats, and periodic assessment of genetic 

integrity, are developed and implemented, including regular reporting of results; and, 

IV. The genetic protocol delineated in Task 4 (as described in the draft revised recovery plan 

outline) is implemented to allow exchange of genetic material among reestablished 

populations. 

While the draft revised recovery plan has not yet been approved, the criteria listed above are 

nevertheless useful for evaluating the effects of a given proposed on the conservation (survival 

and recovery) of the species. 

The status of the species is mixed. An active recovery program actively stocks Gila topminnow 

in Arizona and New Mexico, reestablishing topminnow in “new” sites (Robinson 2010, 2011, 

2012). However, natural sites continue to slowly decline. Gila topminnow has gone from being 

one of the most common fishes of the Gila basin to one that exists at about 41 localities (8 

natural and 33 stocked). Many of these localities are small and highly threatened. The theory of 

island biogeography can be applied to these isolated habitat remnants, as they function similarly 

(Meffe 1983, Laurenson and Hocutt 1985). Species on islands are more prone to extinctions 

than continental areas that are similar in size (MacArthur and Wilson 1967). Meffe (1983) 

considered extirpation of Gila topminnow populations almost as critical as recognized species 

extinctions. Moyle and Williams (1990) noted that fish in California that are in trouble tend to 

be endemic, restricted to a small area, part of fish communities with fewer than five species, and 

found in isolated springs or streams. Gila topminnow has most of these characteristics. 
282

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Table GT-1. Status of natural Gila topminnow populations in the US.

Site Ownership Extant?1, 8 Nonnatives? Mosquitofish? Habitat Size2 Threats3

Bylas Spring5San Carlos YES NO4 NO4S D M/ N G

Cienega Creek BLM/County YES NO NO L H/ R N W U M

Coal Mine Spring AGFD YES NO NO S L/ G

Cocio Wash BLM NO 1982 DRY DRY S H/ M

Cottonwood Spring Private YES NO NO S M/ N W

Fresno Canyon7State Parks YES NO9 NO4 M H/ N U

Middle Spring5San Carlos YES NO4 NO4S H/ N G

Monkey Spring Private YES NO NO S L/ W U

Redrock Canyon USFS NO 200810 YES YES M D H/ W R G N

Salt Creek5San Carlos YES NO4 NO4S M/ N G

San Pedro River Private NO 1976 YES YES - H/ W N G R

Santa Cruz River

 San Rafael

 Tumacacori

Private, State 

Parks, TNC NO6

NO 2003

YES

YES4

YES

YES

L D H/ W N R G C U

Sharp Spring State Parks NO 2004 YES YES M H/ N G 

Sheehy Spring TNC NO 1987 YES YES S H/ N G 

Sonoita Creek Private, TNC, 

State Parks

YES YES YES L D H/ W N G

1

if no, last year recorded

2

Size L = large M= medium S = small D = disjunct

3

Immediacy H = high M = moderate L = low

 Type W = water withdrawal C = contaminants R = recreation N = nonnatives 

 G = grazing M = mining U = urbanization

4

none recently, they have been recorded

5

renovated

6

in Mexico 2006, US in 1993

7

includes Sonoita Creek below Patagonia Lake

8 Recent records are those less than 10 years old

9

Fresno Canyon renovated in 2007 and is free of nonnatives- Sonoita Creek has many nonnatives

10 Stefferud and Stefferud 2008

The Bylas Springs complex, Bylas Spring, Middle Spring, and Salt Creek count as one natural site.
283

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Table GT-2. Reestablished wild populations of Gila topminnow that are likely extant. In Arizona unless noted otherwise 

(Voeltz and Bettaso 2007, FWS files).

Site Name Year stocked 

(discovered) Mixed/pure Lineage(s) Fish From:

AD Wash 1993 Pure Sharp Spring Dexter NFH

Ben Spring 2011 Pure Cottonwood Springs Bubbling Ponds

Bleak Spring 2005 Pure Bylas San Carlos

Bonita Creek (upper) 2010 Pure Bylas Spring Dudleyville pond

Buckhorn Spring 2011 Pure Sharp Spring

Burro Cienega, NM 2008 Pure Bylas Spring Dudleyville pond

Campaign Creek 1983 - Failed Mixed Monkey/Bylas/Cocio BTA

2001 Mixed Sharp/Cienega ASU ARC

Cement Spring 2005 Pure Bylas San Carlos

Chalky Spring 2009 Pure Sharp Spring

Charlebois Spring 1983 Mixed Monkey/Bylas/Cocio BTA

Cherry Spring 

(Muleshoe)

2007-2008 Pure Bylas Spring Dudleyville pond

Cieneguita Wetland 2013 Pure Cienega Creek

Cold Spring (#85) 1985 Pure Monkey Springs BTA

Cottonwood Spring 

(Goldfield Mountains)

2008 Mixed Monkey Springs Boyce Thompson 

Arboretum

Cottonwood Artesian 1982 - Failed Mixed Monkey/Bylas/Cocio BTA

2001 Pure Bylas Springs ASU ARC

Dutchman Grave 

Spring

1983- Failed Mixed Monkey/Bylas/Cocio BTA

2006 Mixed Monkey/Bylas/Cocio BTA

Empire Tank 2013 Pure Cienega Creek

Fossil Creek (#280) 2007-2010 Pure Sharp Spring

Headquarters Spring 

(Muleshoe)

2008 Pure Bylas Spring Dudleyville pond

Horse Thief Draw 2011 Pure Cottonwood Springs Bubbling Ponds

Howard Well 2008 Pure Bylas Spring Dudleyville pond

Larry Creek trib 2005 Pure Coalmine Spring Coalmine Spring

Lime Creek Dispersal from Lime 

Cabin Spring (1996) Mixed

Monkey/Bylas/Cocio

(Lime Cabin Spring stocked 

in 1982)

BTA

Little Nogales Spring 2013 Pure Cienega Creek

Lousy Canyon 1999, 2006 Pure Coalmine Spring Coalmine Spring

Morgan City Wash 2009 Pure Sharp Spring

Mud Springs 1982 Mixed Monkey/Bylas/Cocio BTA

Murray Spring 2011 Pure Cottonwood Springs Bubbling Ponds

Nogales Spring 2013 Pure Cienega Creek

O’Donnell Creek 1974 Pure Monkey Monkey

Pasture 2 Tank 2013 Pure Sharp Spring Robbins Butte

Redrock Wildlife Area 

NM

2010 Pure Bylas Spring Dudleyville pond

Road Canyon Tank 2012 Pure Cienega Creek Robbins Butte

Rock Spring 2013 Pure Santa Cruz (Peck) Phoenix Zoo

Secret Spring (#331, 

Muleshoe)

2007 Pure Bylas Spring Dudleyville pond

Springwater Wetland 2013 Pure Cienega Creek

Swamp Spring 

(Muleshoe) 2007-2008 Pure Bylas Spring Dudleyville pond

Tule Creek 1981 Mixed Monkey/Bylas/Cocio BTA

Unnamed Drainage 

68b

Dispersal from 

Mesquite Tank #2 

(1985)

Mixed

Monkey/Bylas/Cocio 

(Mesquite Tank @ stocked in 

1982)

BTA

Walnut Spring (Mesa 

Ranger District) 1982 Mixed Monkey/Bylas/Cocio BTA
284

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Walnut Spring (Tonto 

Basin Ranger District) 2013 Pure Redrock Canyon ASU & Desert Harbor

Usery Park 2011 Pure Cottonwood Springs

Consultation History 

Our information indicates that, range wide, over 100 formal consultations have been completed 

for actions affecting Gila topminnow. These opinions primarily include the effects of grazing, 

water developments, fire, species control efforts, recreation, land management planning, native 

fish restoration efforts, and mining. 

Environmental Baseline – Gila Topminnow 

The portion of the action area associated with Gila topminnow encompasses all occupied or 

likely-to-be occupied reaches of stream within the Cienega Creek watershed, as these will be 

subject to the proposed action’s effects to groundwater and surface flow hydrology. This area is 

described in detail in the Status of the Species and Critical Habitat within the Action Area 

section, below. The narrative that follows includes accounts of rangewide effects to Gila 

topminnow and its habitat as a means to describe similar factors affecting the species within the 

action area. 

The environmental baseline for the action area, and specifically for aquatic species, was 

thoroughly discussed in the Gila chub section of this BO. It is incorporated here by reference; 

specifics for the Gila topminnow will be discussed here. 

Status of the Species within the Action Area

The action area for the Gila chub encompasses the occupied stream reaches in the Cienega Creek 

watershed. The action-area status of the Gila topminnow was described in our 2008 and 2012 

BOs that addressed effects of Aquatic Species Conservation at the San Pedro Riparian and Las 

Cienegas National Conservation Areas, Arizona (File numbers 22410-2008-F-0103, 22410-

2002-F-0162-R001). The action areas for those BOs overlap with the action area of the proposed 

action; that information is updated here. Other background information can be found in the Gila 

chub section of this BO. There is no designated critical habitat for Gila topminnow. 

The natural population of Gila topminnow in Las Cienegas continues to be the only extant one 

on public lands and it is by far the largest of all remaining natural populations in the United 

States (Simms and Simms 1992, Bodner et al. 2007). The only other public land population, 

Redrock Canyon on the Coronado National Forest, was extirpated in 2008 (Duncan 2013). The 

first repatriation of Gila topminnow into the upper Cienega Creek watershed took place in 

October 2001 at Empire Gulch, followed with additional releases. However, reestablishment of 

Gila topminnow at Empire Gulch has failed (Simms 2010, Service files). This is likely due to 

high levels of aquatic vegetation and aquatic invertebrate predators of Gila topminnow in Empire 

Gulch (Bodner et al. 2007). 
285

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

On May 7, 2012, AGFD stocked 974 Gila topminnow and 656 desert pupfish Cyprinodon 

macularius (lower Colorado River stock), were stocked into Road Canyon Tank in the Las 

Cienegas NCA. Gila topminnow were acquired from Cienega Creek, and hence were Cienega 

Creek lineage. The AGFD’s Nongame Branch and BLM staff visited Road Canyon Tank on 

July 9, 2012 and reported seeing hundreds of topminnow and about 20 desert pupfish (Robinson 

2013). 

On May 8, 2012 AGFD and BLM staff stocked 833 Gila topminnow into one pool in Nogales 

Spring and 910 into two pools in Little Nogales Spring. Fish were collected from Cienega Creek 

(and hence were Cienega Creek lineage) earlier in the day. AGFD Nongame Branch and BLM 

staff visited the two springs on July 10, 2012. Between 50 to 100 Gila topminnow, of which 

about 37 were juveniles, were observed in Nogales Spring. In the upper stocking pool in Little 

Nogales Spring, about 100 Gila topminnow were observed, about half of which were juveniles. 

Adults and juveniles were also observed in the stream for several hundred meters below the 

upper stocking location. In the lower stocking pool over 100 Gila topminnow were observed 

(Robinson 2013). 

BLM management actions that have improved riparian and aquatic habitat for other species on 

Cienega Creek, coupled with drought, have caused topminnow to become significantly rarer in 

the upper perennial reach (Bodner et al. 2007, Duncan 2013). The lower reach of upper Cienega 

Creek appears to have a stable Gila topminnow population (Bodner et al. 2007). There are also 

perennial sections of Cienega Creek north (downstream) of Interstate 10 that hold topminnow 

(Kesner and Marsh 2010). 

Gila topminnow was first documented from Cienega Creek in the 1970's. In addition to Gila 

topminnow, Cienega Creek supports two other native fishes (Bagley et al. 1991, Simms and 

Simms 1991), the longfin dace and the endangered Gila chub. Cienega Creek is one of the last 

places in Arizona supporting an intact native fish fauna uncontaminated by nonindigenous fish 

and is one of the natural Gila topminnow populations not contaminated by mosquitofish 

(Weedman 1999, Voeltz and Bettaso 2007, Duncan 2013).

Cienega Creek and its Gila topminnow habitat are subject to a number of human uses, including 

livestock grazing, recreation, urban and suburban development, groundwater pumping, and 

roads. Before BLM acquired the area, it was primarily used for grazing, but there were also 

extensive agricultural fields along the creek (Eddy and Cooley 1983). These fields were 

irrigated by a system of canals and dams that locally destroyed Gila topminnow habitat and 

created severe erosion. The BLM is removing these developments and has reconstructed part of 

the creek to restore more natural geomorphic and hydrologic conditions (USFWS 1998a, Simms 

2001). 

The lower reach of upper Cienega Creek appears to have a stable Gila topminnow population, 

but because of how data were collected, even that is uncertain (Bodner et al. 2007). The Cienega 

Creek topminnow population is still considered a viable population, and it is still the largest by 

far in the U.S. 
286

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Gila Topminnow populations in upper Cienega Creek as a whole have declined by 15.6 percent 

per (Bodner et al. 2007). They found this trend to be highly significant, although it only 

explained 10 percent of the variation in fish abundance. Trends were vastly different between 

the upper and lower reaches. Topminnow populations in the lower reach were stable over this 

16-year period. However, Gila topminnow numbers in the upper reach declined dramatically 

over the same time. 

Gila topminnow was discovered on Pima County’s Preserve in 2002, as was Gila chub. Longfin 

dace also occur there. Use of the Preserve is only recreation, which is limited to 20 people per 

day. Several clay pits, sand and gravel mines, and other mineral development occurs or is 

planned in the area. Some of the clay pits close to the preserve have been known to contain 

water and nonindigenous fish and bullfrogs. Fortunately, to date no nonindigenous fish have 

been found in Cienega Creek in the Preserve. There is a diversion at the downstream-most end 

of perennial flow. All base flow is diverted down a grate. 

In 2004, AGFD personnel captured 30 Gila topminnow at the confluence of Davidson Canyon 

and Cienega Creek (Voeltz 2004). As part of an ongoing program established by the U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation, Cienega Creek is one location where fish monitoring was conducted 

from 2007 through 2010 (Kesner and Marsh 2010, Marsh and Kesner 2011). Sampling was 

conducted at two locations in Cienega Creek: Station 1 (upstream of the confluence of Davidson 

Canyon) and Station 2 (downstream of the confluence with Davidson Canyon). They caught 26 

Gila topminnow in 2007, 96 in 2008, 61 in 2009, and 255 in 2010. Gila topminnow were 

captured by the BLM within the lower and upper reaches of upper Cienega Creek in 2005, 2007, 

and 2008. Many topminnow were observed in Mattie Canyon in 2006, and one was captured 

within Mattie Canyon in 2007 (Bodner et al. 2007); however, none were observed in 2008 (Ehret 

and Simms 2009). As part of an effort intended to create, enhance, and protect habitat for at-risk 

species within the Las Cienegas NCA, Caldwell et al. (2011) identified numerous new suitable 

renovated pond sites for Gila Topminnow reestablishment within Upper and Lower Cienega 

Creek and within other portions of the Empire Valley. 

Monkey Spring 

Monkey Spring is located 1.2 mi (2 km) south of Cottonwood Spring and 100 feet east of 

Sonoita Creek. It originates on a sideslope above Monkey Canyon, a tributary of Sonoita Creek. 

Before diversion, the spring flowed through a marsh then over a travertine terrace that resulted in 

a waterfall of about 40 ft (12 m) into the canyon (Minckley 1973). In the late 1800’s a dam was 

built across the terrace and the flow diverted into a ditch (see also Chamberlain 1904). The 

artificial pond later drained when attempts to deepen it resulted in breaking the seal on the 

bottom. The springhead and a short reach are excluded from livestock grazing. The spring 

continues to be diverted into a cement ditch, and then pipes, that take it to the Sonoita Creek 

floodplain for irrigation. Some flow periodically drains into the pond and provides transient Gila 

topminnow habitat. 

Monkey Spring is privately owned and is not accessible to the public. The ranch on which it is 

located was once threatened with development but is being acquired as part of the proposed 
287

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

action. Although the to-be-acquired lands do not actually contain Monkey Spring proper, the 

water rights to the spring’s outflow are appurtenant to the lands and will thus also be acquired 

and protected. 

Gila topminnow was first documented in Monkey Spring in 1904 (Chamberlain). Monkey 

Spring is the most genetically differentiated of the Gila topminnow populations (Hedrick and 

Parker 1998, Hedrick et al. 2001, Parker et al. 1999) in the Gila basin. Historically, two other 

native fish occurred in Monkey Spring, the Santa Cruz pupfish (Cyprinodon arcuatus) and Gila 

chub (Minckley 1973). The pupfish went extinct, and Gila chub was extirpated after 

nonindigenous sport fish were introduced (Minckley 1973). Yaqui catfish, a native of the Rio 

Yaqui basin to the east and south, were introduced into a reservoir fed by Monkey Spring in 

1899, but died out sometime after 1950 (Chamberlain 1904, Minckley 1973). At present, there 

are no nonindigenous fish in Monkey Spring (Voeltz and Bettaso 2003). Previous landowners 

introduced the nonindigenous fish in the past, but this is now less likely given that the site will 

enter conservation ownership and be actively managed for native species as part of the proposed 

action. 

Factors affecting species environment within the action area 

The action-area status of the Gila topminnow was described in our 2008 and 2012 BOs that 

addressed effects of Aquatic Species Conservation at the San Pedro Riparian and Las Cienegas 

National Conservation Areas, Arizona (File numbers 22410-2008-F-0103, 22410-2002-F-0162-

R001). The action areas for those BOs overlap with the action area of the proposed action; that 

information is updated here. The factors affecting the Gila chub are the same ones affecting the 

Gila topminnow; so that section of this BO is incorporated here by reference. There is no 

designated critical habitat for Gila topminnow. 

Effects of the Action - Gila Topminnow

The effects of the action to Gila topminnow will be very similar to those described for Gila chub. 

Therefore, that discussion in this BO is incorporated here by reference. Any effects that may 

affect the Gila topminnow differently than Gila chub, will be discussed below. 

Climate change may be less problematic for Gila topminnow compared to Gila chub. Gila 

topminnow have about a 2oC higher tolerance of water temperature than Gila chub (Carveth et 

al. 2006). Gila topminnow are also likely to respond better to reduced dissolved oxygen in the 

water; topminnow can survive with dissolved oxygen at 1ppm, while chub require at least 3ppm. 

Also, amount of stream flow is a factor in dissolved oxygen; generally the less the flow, the less 

the amount of dissolved oxygen. 

As for how the modeled groundwater drawdowns will impact Gila topminnow, many of the 

impacts will be the same as for Gila chub. However, a reduction in the wetted perimeter will be 

more deleterious for topminnow than Gila chub, since Gila topminnow prefer and use shallow 

waters much more than chub. Therefore, habitat that is likely to be occupied by topminnow in 

the future (when drawdowns occur) will be lost or reduced by the proposed action. Losses of 
288

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

habitat resulting from the groundwater drawdown associated with the proposed action may 

impact Cienega Creek north of I-10 (The Preserve), Cienega Creek on Las Cienegas NCA, and 

Mattie Canyon. The modeled loss of surface water in the northern reaches of upper Cienega 

Creek is more of a concern than the southern reaches, because the best topminnow populations 

on the NCA occur there (Bodner et al. 2007). In addition, BLM’s Cieneguita wetland project in 

the lower Empire Gulch drainage is slated to receive Gila topminnow (BLM 2007) in the next 

two years. Groundwater losses near the confluence of Empire Gulch and Cienega Creek could 

impact the Cieneguita wetlands. 

Since attempts to establish Gila topminnow in Empire Gulch have failed, the modeled 

groundwater decline at the Empire Gulch Spring is not likely to impact Gila topminnow, at least 

certainly not in the near term. There are no discussions on releasing topminnow into any part of 

Empire Gulch. The problems with excess aquatic vegetation and shade in the spring run would 

need to change before Gila topminnow releases were entertained. 

Since the effects of the action to Gila topminnow will be off-site, conservation measures can 

only be effectively realized off-site. The two conservations measures discussed below are 

outside the footprint of the mine, though one is in the action area. Other than the monitoring 

mentioned above, two conservation measures should promote conservation and recovery of Gila 

topminnow. A full description of the conservation measures can be found in the proposed action 

section of this BO. 

The Cienega Creek Watershed Conservation Fund will provide $200,000 a year for 10 years for 

development and implementation of measures intended to preserve and enhance aquatic and 

riparian ecosystems and the federally listed aquatic and riparian species that depend on them. 

The funds can be used to support approved management efforts by Pima County and others to 

control invasive aquatic species that presently occur (bullfrogs), or may occur later. Funds can 

be used for restoration activities and adaptive management. Rosemont will acquire and close 

one well near the diversion dam in lower Cienega Creek. Also, Rosemont will acquire over 1100 

af of water rights, and transfer them for conservation purposes, or sever them. 

About 825 acre-feet per annum (afa), will be used for aquifer recharge below Pantano Dam, 

either through a Corps approved ILF mitigation program or through a “managed underground 

storage facility (MUSF)” permitted through the ADWR. This will allow surface water flows 

currently diverted for golf course irrigation to be captured and discharged back to the streambed 

below the Pantano Dam within the Cienega Creek Natural Preserve. Flow will be captured at the 

existing in-channel grated diversion, and then released into the stream channel below the dam. 

Gila topminnow and longfin dace have been observed right above the dam, on the dam, and in 

the scour pool below the dam. It is certain that fish have been and will continue to go into the 

diversion, and suffer death or injury. How much habitat will be suitable for topminnow remains 

to be seen, but it is highly likely suitable topminnow habitat will form below the dam. The 

actions taken under this conservation measure should enhance the resiliency and suitability of 

Cienega Creek for Gila topminnow, especially in the lower creek, at least in the short-term. 

Under the threat of continuing long-term drought and climate change, enhancing system 

resiliency is a key component for adapting to climate change and reducing its affects (Overpeck 
289

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

et al. 2012). 

Also, Rosemont will purchase about 1,200 acres of land along Sonoita Creek (Sonoita Creek 

Ranch) with about 590 afa of certificated surface water rights from Monkey Spring. This is near 

Patagonia, and outside of the action area. It is anticipated that the land will be transferred either 

to a Corps-approved ILF program sponsor or to a conservation entity for management of the 

property. In addition, unless an ILF program is developed Rosemont will fund $150,000 a year 

for 10 years for resource management. An additional $100,000 ($20,000 annually for five years) 

will be provided for management against nonnative species, generally in the two existing ponds 

on the property that are maintained with water from Monkey Spring. An evolutionary significant 

unit of Gila topminnow occurs in Monkey Spring (Hedrick et al. 2001); acquisition of even part 

of the water rights will provide some protection to this natural topminnow population. Gila chub 

and Gila topminnow will be established in the ponds after nonnatives are removed from them. 

Because this parcel is outside of the action area, this action represents recovery in lieu of threat 

removal. The environmental baseline and recovery status of Gila topminnow should be 

improved by actions taken at Sonoita Creek Ranch. Also, the source of Monkey Spring appears 

to be the regional aquifer, which should be somewhat buffered from local groundwater pumping 

and climate change. 

The environmental baseline and recovery status of Gila topminnow should be improved by 

actions taken at Sonoita Creek Ranch. The proposed action is implements tasks in the draft 

revised Gila topminnow recovery plan (Weedman 1999). This is a vitally important area for Gila 

topminnow conservation, because many natural topminnow populations are in the area, and 

reestablishment sites are limited there. The Cienega Creek Watershed Fund and Sonoita Creek 

Ranch conservation measures are essential to offset expected effects to Gila topminnow and their 

habitat. 

Lastly, there exists a draft revised recovery plan for Gila topminnow (Weedman 1999; see Status 

of the Species section, above), which contains Survival and Reclassification Criteria. The 

proposed action will affect the habitat for and the population of Gila topminnow in Cienega 

Creek, the securing of which is described in Survival Criterion I(A), but we anticipate, as 

previously stated, that the Cienega Creek Watershed Fund will be effective in conserving Gila 

topminnow in this system. Survival Criteria II, III, and IV will not be affected. 

Reclassification Criterion I is met when the Survival Criteria have been met. Given that the 

proposed action supports Survival Criterion I and does not affect Survival Criteria II, III, or IV, 

we anticipate that the ability to reclassify (downlist) Gila topminnow will not be precluded by 

the proposed action. Reclassification Criterion II refers to the replication, establishment, and 

survival of populations within the Gila topminnow’s historical range. The acquisition and 

restoration of the Sonoita Creek Ranch will contribute to the implementation of this criterion, 

thus supporting reclassification from endangered to threatened, a meaningful increment towards 

recovery of the species. Reclassification Criterion III refers to monitoring of populations and 

periodic assessments of genetic integrity. The restoration of and likely reestablishment of Gila 

topminnow to the Sonoita Creek Ranch will be monitored; genetic assessments are beyond the 

scope of the proposed action and will most likely be pursued at the species-wide scale by AGFD, 
290

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

FWS, and academia. Reclassification Criterion IV requires that a genetic protocol that allows for 

the exchange of genetic material between populations; this too is beyond the scope of the 

proposed action and will most likely be pursued by wildlife agencies and researchers. 

Summary of Effects – Gila Topminnow 

 Groundwater levels have historically been variable; 

 The environmental baseline shows increasing trends in water use in some areas of the 

action area; 

 The current extended drought and climate change are highly likely to negatively impact 

many system components from the upper parts of the watershed to where Cienega Creek 

becomes Pantano Wash through: 

o Changes in upland vegetation and fire regime; 

o Higher ambient and water temperatures; 

o Increased variability in stream hydrographs; 

o More frequent severe climatic events (such as storms, droughts, wildlfires, etc.); 

 The proposed conservation measures will not preclude all anticipated effects to surface 

waters from occurring; 

 Acquisition of Sonoita Creek Ranch is a significant benefit to a critically important 

natural Gila topminnow population; 

 Impacts to groundwater, and thus surface water, are reasonably certain to impact areas 

occupied by Gila topminnow, and thus will negatively impact Gila topminnow; and 

 Impacts to wetted stream perimeter and water depth are anticipated to be long-term (50-

150 or more years after closure). 

Cumulative Effects – Gila Topminnow 

The cumulative effects for the action area, and specifically for aquatic species, was thoroughly 

discussed in the Gila chub section of this BO. It is incorporated here by reference. 

Conclusion – Gila Topminnow 

After reviewing the current status of the Gila topminnow, the environmental baseline for the 

action area, the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is the FWS’s 

biological opinion that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 

the Gila topminnow. Pursuant to 50 CFR 402.02, “jeopardize the continued existence of” means 

to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce 

appreciably the likelihood of both survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by 

reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species. We present this conclusion 

for the following reasons: 

1. No directs effects from operation of the mine are expected; 

2. Rosemont will monitor groundwater drawdown and the USFS will compare observed 

drawdown to modeled drawdown. Groundwater drawdown greater than modeled may 

require reinitiation of section 7 consultation; 
291

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

3. The Cienega Creek Watershed Conservation Fund will, for the short-term at least, protect 

and potentially increase habitat for Gila chub by funding actions management and 

restoration actions in the watershed, protecting water rights, and creating habitat; 

4. The Cienega Creek Watershed Conservation Fund is likely to increase ecosystem 

resiliency in the face of the expected groundwater drawdown from Rosemont Mine, and 

impacts from climate change; 

5. The Sonoita Creek Ranch will create new habitat for Gila topminnow that is created from 

a reliable water source (Monkey Spring); 

6. The Sonoita Creek Ranch will provide additional protection to an evolutionarily 

significant unit of Gila topminnow, and proposes to implement actions in the draft 

revised Gila topminnow recovery plan; 

7. The Cienega Creek Watershed Fund and Sonoita Creek Ranch conservation measures are 

essential to offset expected effects to Gila topminnow and their habitat; 

8. Indirect effects from groundwater drawdown are difficult to predict at the distances from 

the drawdown (Rosemont Mine), and will not occur until well after mine closure. 

9. Groundwater drawdown is not expected to be more than 0.1 ft in any of the modeled 

locations until 150 years after mine closure; and 

10. Conservation and recovery actions have taken place since the species was listed, continue 

to occur, with more actions in planning. Therefore, we believe the status of the species is 

static or improving. 

11. The magnitude of the proposed action’s effects and the implementation of conservation 

measures, as described in Conclusions 2 - 6, above) mean that the recovery potential of 

Gila topminnow (per the draft revised recovery plan) will not be diminished. 

12. Critical habitat has not been designated for the Gila topminnow; none will be affected. 

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT – GILA TOPMINNOW 

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act, prohibit take of 

endangered or threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. “Take” is defined as 

to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage 

in any such conduct. “Harm” is further defined to include significant habitat modification or 

degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral 

patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. “Harass” is defined in the regulations as ``an 

intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by 

annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which 

include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR §17.3). Incidental take is 

defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out an otherwise lawful 

activity. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and 

not intended as part of the proposed action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the 

Act provided such taking is in compliance with this Incidental Take Statement. 

The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be included by the USFS as 

binding conditions of any grant or permit issued to the applicant, as appropriate, for the 

exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The USFS has a continuing duty to regulate the activity 

that is covered by this Incidental Take Statement. If the USFS (1) fails to assume and implement 

the terms and conditions, or (2) fails to require the applicant to adhere to the terms and 
292

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

conditions of this incidental take statement through enforceable terms that are added to the 

permit or grant document, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to 

monitor the impact of incidental take, the USFS, or the applicant must report the progress of the 

action and its impact on the species as specified in the Incidental Take Statement (see 50 CFR 

402.14(I)(3)). 

Amount or Extent of Take Anticipated – Gila Topminnow

We anticipate that the proposed action will result in incidental take of Gila topminnow. Any 

reduction in stream discharge resulting from groundwater drawdowns attributable to the 

proposed action will reduce the extent and/or quality of aquatic habitat required by Gila 

topminnow; we are thus reasonably certain that take will occur. 

Incidental take of Gila topminnow in Cienega Creek will be difficult to detect for the following 

reasons: population levels cannot be accurately described with existing information and 

techniques, dead animals are difficult to find, cause of death may be difficult to determine, and 

losses may be masked by seasonal fluctuations in numbers or other causes. The incidental take 

is expected to be in the form of harm through the loss of habitat from groundwater drawdown, 

and harm, harassment, and mortality from water diversion and management at Pantano Dam. 

We recognize that providing a numerical estimate of incidental take is the preferred method of 

measuring take and that for some animals this method is biologically defensible as the ecology of 

the animal lends itself to them being more detectible (e.g., long-lived, territorial species such as 

the desert tortoise). However, it is impossible to quantify the number of individual Gila 

topminnow taken because: (1) dead or impaired individuals are almost impossible to find (and 

are readily consumed by scavengers and predators) and losses may be masked by seasonal 

fluctuations in environmental conditions; (2) the status of the species will change over time 

through disease, natural population variation, natural habitat loss, or the active creation of habitat 

through management; and (3) the species is small-bodied, well camouflaged, and occurs under 

water of varying clarity. 

Gila topminnow are subject to an existing monitoring program in the Cienega Creek watershed 

on the Las Cienegas NCA. The currently used sampling techniques result in an index of fish 

abundance per sampling site, as catch-per-unit-effort per pool. The sampling techniques used on 

Las Cienegas NCA are only sensitive enough to be statistically significant if the population 

doubles or is halved (Bodner et al. 2007). Monitoring in reaches downstream from the NCA 

(Marsh and Kesner 2011) is even less suited to determining population trends. Gila topminnow 

population estimates can theoretically be acquired, but are difficult, time consuming, stressful to 

the fish (to the point of harm), and expensive. In addition, the number of Gila topminnow in any 

population are normally extremely variable during a year due to an r-selected (high fecundity, 

short generation time, wide dispersal of offspring) reproductive strategy, common in highly 

variable environments such as desert streams. 

It is reasonable to assume that the abundance of Gila topminnow is correlated with the extent of 

suitable aquatic habitat provided by surface flows in the affected streams (see Status of the 
293

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Species within the Action Area section). Baseflows maintain stream discharge when surface 

runoff is low or nonexistent, and these baseflows result from groundwater discharge. The 

discharge of groundwater to springs and streams is related to the elevation and gradient that 

regional groundwater exhibits relative to those surface waters. Decreases in groundwater 

elevation affect this gradient and thus, reduce the discharge of groundwater to streams (see 

Effects to Aquatic Ecosystems section). Groundwater elevations, which can be readily 

measured, are therefore effective surrogate measures for the incidental take of Gila topminnow. 

The Effects to Aquatic Ecosystems and Effects to Riparian Ecosystems sections of this BO as 

well as the analysis of effects for the Gila chub, above, discuss the relationship between the 

proposed action, changes in groundwater elevation, and the volume and length of surface flow in 

streams. Changes in groundwater elevation have been modeled (Montgomery and Associates 

2012, Myers 2010, and Tetra Tech 2012), and are summarized in Table A-5 in the Effects to 

Aquatic Ecosystems section. This document’s analyses were based primarily on the drawdowns 

modeled by Tetra Tech (2010), including the results of sensitivity analyses. Sensitivity analysis 

is explained in the Effects to Aquatic Ecosystems section above, and is summarized, below.

The changes in groundwater elevation will result in reduced wetted lengths and volumes in 

reaches of stream maintained by discharges from the regional aquifer; surface flow effects are 

summarized in Tables A-2, A-3, and A-4 in the Effects to Aquatic Ecosystems section. 

Westland (2012) determined that there could be some reductions in the wetted length of lower 

Cienega Creek from groundwater drawdowns over the long term. We also anticipate that 

reduced flow volumes could result in increased summer water temperatures (Barlow and Leake 

2012) and thus reductions in dissolved oxygen content (oxygen solubility is inversely related to 

water temperature), thus further adversely affecting (Bodner et al. 2007) the already-reduced 

numbers of Gila topminnow that would remain. 

Therefore, the take of Gila topminnow is expressed in terms of the drawdowns noted in the 

locations and time frames (0, 20, 50, 150, and 1,000 years) discussed in analysis of the effects to 

the species, above, which are: (1) the Gardner/Cienega Confluence, representing effects to 

Gardner Canyon; (2) Empire Gulch Springs, representing effects to Empire Gulch; (3) USGS 

stream gage No. 09484550, representing effects to upper Cienega Creek; (4) the 

Davidson/Cienega Confluence, representing effects to Davidson Canyon Wash; and (5) USGS 

stream gage No. 09484560 , representing effects to lower Cienega Creek. Further, take is 

expressed as the upper limits of the sensitivity analyses as this potentially larger drawdown was 

considered in the Effects of the Action section for Gila topminnow. The groundwater modeling 

involved the creation of a number of scenarios, each scenario using different modeling 

parameters (e.g. varying amounts of recharge, differing transmissivities, etc.). Each individual 

parameter was varied within a reasonable range of values. This suite of modeling scenarios 

known as the sensitivity analysis (in other words, determining which variables have the greatest 

influence on the model results). Out of the suite of modeling scenarios, only one was considered 

the “best-fit”, or baseline, modeling scenario. The range of predicted drawdown from the rest of 

the modeling scenarios, however, is still considered possible or reasonable, though not as likely 

to occur. Since the entire range of results was considered in the Effects of the Proposed Action 

section for this species, take is expressed as the largest of the predicted drawdowns. Table GT-3, 
294

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

below, displays the anticipated amount or extent of take. 

Table GT-3: Anticipated amount or extent of take for the Gila topminnow, based on Tetra Tech (2010, as 

referenced in SWCA 2012) and Table A-5 in the Effects to Aquatic Ecosystems section.

Location

Maximum anticipated post-mining

groundwater drawdown (in feet) by year1

0 20 50 150 1,000

Gardner/Cienega Confluence <0.1 <0.1 0.15 0.35 0.5

Upper Empire Gulch Springs 0.1 0.5 1.8 5.0 6.0

Upper Cienega Creek near stream gage No. 09484550 <0.1 <0.1 0.15 0.35 0.5

Davidson/Cienega Confluence <0.1 0.15 0.2 0.2 0.1

Lower Cienega Creek near stream gage No. 09484560 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

1 Drawdowns described as less than 0.1 foot would be exceeded if they met or exceeded 0.1 foot.

The sites and time frames which appear in Tables GT-3 (above) and A-5 (in the Effects to 

Aquatic Ecosystems section), and are referred to throughout this BO’s effects analyses, represent 

groundwater model outputs at locations and times of interest to biological resources. It is 

recognized, however, that the sites currently lack observation wells; groundwater elevations 

cannot be monitored at those locations. Moreover, these sites are proximal to streams and will 

experience confounding influences from recharge by runoff, riparian ET, and drought, rendering 

the sites relatively unsuited for groundwater monitoring – and unsuited for determining cause 

and effect relationships for hydrologic changes - even if wells were emplaced. It is also 

recognized that the time intervals for the reported drawdowns (0, 20, 50, 150, and 1,000 years 

post-mining) are not meaningful for monitoring take; the intervals are too infrequent and become 

even less frequent over time. The groundwater model, however, can be run such that drawdowns 

at any location within its domain (such as where groundwater monitoring wells have been or will 

be placed; see Table GT-4, below) and at any desired time interval can be determined (USGS 

1997). Given that the drawdowns at the alternative sites displayed in Table GT-4 (appropriate 

locations for monitoring wells) would be derived from the same model that resulted in the 

anticipated levels of take at the sites described in Table GT-3, the alternative sites can serve as 

directly-comparable proxies for the key locations noted in Table GT-3. 

We also note that fluctuations in groundwater elevation can vary daily and seasonally from 

environmental factors. These daily fluctuations have the potential to exceed the smaller 

magnitude groundwater drawdowns displayed in table GT-3 (particularly those ≤0.1 foot). 

During the initial implementation phase (site construction, early pit construction) there is an 

opportunity to monitor daily and seasonal groundwater fluctuations for 2 to 4 years - under 

background conditions - before the anticipated effects from the pit dewatering are realized. The 

results from this initial monitoring will help determine the degree of background (baseline) 

variation in the observed groundwater elevations prior to the realization of Rosemont’s effects. 

The data will also assist in discerning the groundwater drawdown attributable to the pit from 

unrelated environmental factors. 
295

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

The USFS (2013b) has provided a list of well sites, already subject to monitoring for various 

environmental compliance purposes (see Monitoring Measure FS-BR-24 in Appendix B) that are 

likely to be suitable for monitoring the surrogate measure of incidental take (groundwater 

drawdown). The wells are located east of the crest of the Santa Rita Mountains, between the 

mine pit and Cienega Creek and Davidson Canyon Wash. Monitoring of some or all of these 

wells as proxies (for groundwater drawdown at the key locations in Table GT-3) will allow take 

of Gila Topminnow to be monitored immediately and during the active life of the mine, rather 

than waiting decades or centuries that it is modeled to take measurable drawdown to reach the 

affected streams, Cienega Creek and Empire Gulch. This suite of potential alternative 

monitoring sites has been reproduced in Table GT-4, below. 

Table GT-4: Potential groundwater monitoring wells for compliance with the surrogate measure of incidental take 

(groundwater drawdown) described in Table GC-3, above. Groundwater drawdowns at a suite of these sites – once 

modeled and analyzed for their degree of natural variation – will serve as proxies for the drawdowns in Table GC-3.

Well Name Direction from Mine Pit Approximate Distance from Mine Pit (miles)

Potential Gardner Canyon monitoring wells to serve as a proxy for the Gardner/Cienega Confluence

HC-6 S 0.5

17bdb SE 3

RP-5 SSE 1.2

18ddb SSE 3.2

16cbb SE 3.4

Rosemont Ranch SE 3.8

Potential Empire Gulch monitoring wells to serve as a proxy for Empire Gulch Springs

DH-1541 ESE 2.6

Oaktree Windmill ESE 4.1

Potential Davidson Canyon Wash monitoring wells to serve as a proxy for the Davidson/Cienega Confluence

C-1 NE 0.5

HC-5B NNE 0.6

P-899 NE 1

HC-4B NE 1.6

RP-2C ENE 2.5

RP-6 NE 3.8

RP-7 NE 4.5

Potential Cienega Creek monitoring wells to serve as proxies for Upper and Lower Cienega Creek

RP-3B E 1.5

RP-9 E 3.4

RP-8 ENE 4.5

In summary, and stated differently, the maximum allowable incidental take of Gila topminnow is 

represented by the surrogate measure of groundwater drawdowns at the sites and time intervals 

stated in Table GT-3, above. The to-be-modeled groundwater drawdowns at a suite of potential 

sites appearing in Table GT-4, above, will serve as proxies for the incidental take at the sites in 

Table GT-3. The manner by which Rosemont and the USFS shall monitor compliance with the 

amount of incidental take is described further in the Terms and Conditions, below. 
296

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Effect of the Take – Gila Topminnow 

In this BO, the FWS determined that this level of anticipated take is not likely to result in 

jeopardy to the Gila topminnow. 

Reasonable and Prudent Measures – Gila Topminnow 

The FWS believes the following reasonable and prudent measures are necessary and appropriate 

to minimize impacts of incidental take of Gila topminnow: 

1. Rosemont shall monitor groundwater levels (as a surrogate for take of Gila topminnow) at 

least annually; 

2. Rosemont shall apply the funds identified for the Cienega Creek Watershed Fund and 

Sonoita Creek Ranch conservation measures solely to the identified conservation projects. 

Terms and Conditions – Gila Topminnow 

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, Rosemont and the USFS 

must comply with the following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and 

prudent measures described above and outline required reporting/monitoring requirements. 

These terms and conditions are non-discretionary. 

1.1 Rosemont and the USFS shall select a representative group of the observation wells 

found in Table GT-4, above (USFS 2013b) at which groundwater levels, a surrogate for 

take of Gila topminnow, shall be monitored. Once the wells have been selected, 

Rosemont shall re-run the Tetra Tech (2010) groundwater model to obtain groundwater 

drawdowns (including sensitivity analyses) at all of the well sites. The time intervals 

shall be each year through closure of the mine, and thereafter, every 5 years. Monitoring 

will continue postclosure for a duration determined to be necessary by FWS and USFS 

based on data gathered during implementation and input from the team described in Term 

and Condition 1.5, below. 

1.2 At the time construction of the mine commences (and prior to pit excavation), Rosemont 

shall initiate monitoring of the selected groundwater wells and report the results annually 

to the USFS and FWS through closure of the mine. Monitoring will continue postclosure 

for a duration determined to be necessary by FWS and USFS based on data gathered 

during implementation and input from the team described in Term and Condition 1.5, 

below. 

1.3 During the initial implementation phase (site construction and early pit construction), 

Rosemont shall monitor the wells daily (or via continuous data collection devices) to 

determine the magnitude of daily and seasonal groundwater fluctuations prior to the onset 

of the anticipated effects of pit dewatering. The results from initial monitoring will help 

determine if and to what degree observed groundwater elevations vary due to natural 
297

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

fluctuations (baseline conditions). The magnitude of the observed fluctuations shall 

accompany the model results from Term and Condition 1.1 which will then be reported to 

the USFS and FWS. 

1.4 Rosemont and the USFS shall compare the results of the monitoring described in Term 

and Condition 1.2 to the groundwater model results described in Term and Condition 1.1, 

including the variation noted from implementation of Term and Condition 1.3, and report 

the finding to FWS annually. 

1.5 If it is determined at any time via monitoring that the observed groundwater drawdowns 

exceed the upper bounds of the sensitivity analyses for the modeled groundwater 

drawdowns, including consideration of applicable daily and seasonal fluctuations, then it 

is possible that the take of Gila topminnow described in Table GT-3 has been exceeded. 

In this event, the USFS shall convene a team consisting of Forest Service staff, FWS, 

Rosemont Copper, USGS, the University of Arizona, and the Bureau of Land 

Management to seek consensus on whether the exceedance can be attributable to 

Rosemont’s activities and thus be considered an exceedance of the take authorized by this 

Incidental Take Statement. If a team cannot be convened or consensus is not reached, the 

USFS or FWS shall make the determination of whether reinitiation of consultation is 

appropriate. 

2. The funds identified for the Cienega Creek Watershed Fund and Sonoita Creek Ranch 

conservation measures may only be used for projects as described in the Conservation 

Measures subsection of the Description of the Proposed Action Section, above. Indirect 

(overhead) costs must be funded separately. 

Conservation Recommendations – Gila Topminnow 

Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the 

purposes of the ESA by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and 

threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to 

minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species, to help implement 

recovery plans, or to develop information. The FWS recommends the following conservation 

activities: 

1. We recommend that the USFS and Rosemont coordinate with the Cienega Watershed 

Partnership, AGFD, the F.R.O.G. Project, and our office in efforts to work with private 

landowners to remove populations of nonnative aquatic species from lands in the area; 

2. We recommend that the USFS continue to assist us and the AGFD in conserving and 

recovering the Gila topminnow; 

3. We recommend that the USFS assist us with the completion and implementation of the 

Gila topminnow revised recovery plan; 

4. We recommend that Rosemont consider releasing Gila topminnow into water features on 
298

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

the mine site, when the site is suitable, and the release of topminnow would not conflict 

with other conservation actions; 

5. We recommend that Rosemont and the eventual owner or manager of Sonoita Creek 

Ranch consider changing how water is diverted at Monkey Spring to reduce fish 

entrainment. An infiltration gallery would be ideal to reduce entrainment; 

6. We recommend that Rosemont consider acquiring the remaining water rights for Monkey 

Spring and the fee title property with Monkey Spring; 

7. We recommend that Rosemont consider acquiring the water rights for Cottonwood 

Spring; 

8. We recommend that the USFS acquire instream flow water rights to ensure perennial 

flow in streams with Gila topminnow; 

9. We recommend that the USFS continue to work cooperatively with the FWS and AGFD 

to remove nonnative species and reestablish Gila topminnow whenever possible 

throughout its historical range in Arizona; and 

10. We recommend that the USFS continue fish surveys on NFS lands to determine the 

extent that Gila topminnow occupy those streams. 

For the FWS to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effect or benefiting 

listed species or their habitats, the FWS requests notification of the implementation of any 

conservation recommendations. 

Status of the Species - Huachuca Water Umbel 

The Huachuca water umbel (Lilaeopsis schaffneriana var. recurva) (umbel) is an herbaceous, 

semi-aquatic to occasionally fully aquatic, perennial plant with slender, erect leaves that grow 

from creeping rhizomes. The leaves are cylindrical, hollow with no pith, and have septa (thin 

partitions) at regular intervals. The yellow/green or bright green leaves are generally 0.04 to 

0.12 inch in diameter and often 1 to 2 inches tall, but can reach up to 8 inches tall under 

favorable conditions. Three to ten very small flowers are borne on an umbel that is always 

shorter than the leaves. The fruits are globose, 0.06 to 0.08 inch in diameter, and usually slightly 

longer than wide (Affolter 1985).

On January 6, 1997, we listed the umbel as an endangered species (62 FR 665; FWS 1997). 

Critical habitat was designated on the upper San Pedro River, Garden Canyon on Fort Huachuca, 

Scotia Canyon and other areas of the Huachuca Mountains, the San Rafael Valley, and Sonoita 

Creek on July 12, 1999 (64 FR 37441; FWS 1999). No recovery plan has been developed, but a 

draft recovery plan is anticipated to be complete in 2013. 

Distribution/Abundance 
299

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Umbel has been documented from sites in Santa Cruz, Cochise, and Pima counties, Arizona, and 

in adjacent Sonora, Mexico, west of the continental divide (Haas and Frye 1997, SaucedoMonarque 1990, Warren et al. 1989, Warren et al. 1991, Warren and Reichenbacher 1991, 

Anderson 2006). The plant has been extirpated from six sites. The extant sites occur primarily 

in five major watersheds - San Pedro River, Santa Cruz River, Río Yaqui/Bavispe, Río Sonora, 

and Río Magdalena. All sites are between 3,500 and 7,250 feet in elevation. 

Habitat 

The umbel grows in cienegas (marshy wetlands), and along streams, rivers, and springs in 

southeastern Arizona and northeastern Sonora, Mexico, typically in mid-elevation wetland 

communities often surrounded by relatively arid environments. These wetland communities are 

usually associated with perennial springs and stream headwaters, have permanently or seasonally 

saturated highly organic soils, and have a low probability of flooding or scouring (Hendrickson 

and Minckley 1984). The water umbel can grow in saturated soils or as an emergent in water 

depths up to about 10 inches. Cienegas support diverse assemblages of animals and plants, of 

which many species are of limited distribution, such as the umbel (Hendrickson and Minckley 

1984). The surrounding non-wetland vegetation can be desert scrub, grassland, oak woodland, 

or conifer forest (Arizona Game and Fish Department 1997). 

Umbel has an opportunistic strategy that ensures its survival in healthy riverine systems, 

cienegas, and springs. In upper watersheds that generally do not experience scouring floods, 

umbel occurs in microsites where interspecific plant competition is low. At these sites, umbel 

occurs on wetted soils interspersed with other plants at low density, along the periphery of the 

wetted channel, or in small openings in the understory. In stream and river habitats, umbel can 

occur in backwaters, side channels, and nearby springs. The upper Santa Cruz River and 

associated springs in the San Rafael Valley, where a population of umbel occurs, is an example 

of a site that meets these conditions. The types of microsites required by umbel were generally 

lost from the main stems of the San Pedro and Santa Cruz rivers when channel entrenchment 

occurred in the late 1800s. 

Habitat on the upper San Pedro River is recovering, and umbel has recently recolonized small 

reaches of the main channel. Cienegas, perennial streams, and rivers in the desert southwest are 

extremely rare. The Arizona Game and Fish Department (1993) estimated that riparian 

vegetation associated with perennial streams comprises about 0.4% of the total land area of 

Arizona, with present riparian areas being remnants of what once existed. The State of Arizona 

(1990) estimated that up to 90 percent of the riparian habitat along Arizona’s major desert

watercourses has been lost, degraded, or altered. The physical and biological habitat features 

essential to the conservation of umbel include a riparian plant community that is fairly stable 

over time and not dominated by non-native plant species, a stream channel that is relatively 

stable but subject to periodic, non-scouring flooding, refugial sites (sites safe from catastrophic 

flooding), and a substrate (soil) that is permanently wet or nearly so, for growth and reproduction 

of the plant. 
300

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Life History 

The umbel flowers from March through October with most flowering in June through August 

(Arizona Game and Fish Department 1997). The species reproduces sexually through flowering 

and asexually from rhizomes, the latter probably being the primary reproductive mode. The 

umbel is also suspected of self-pollination (Johnson et al. 1992). An additional dispersal 

opportunity occurs as a result of the dislodging of clumps of plants, which then may re-root in a 

different site along aquatic systems. Fruits develop from July through September, and water 

disperses the seeds (Arizona Game and Fish Department 1997). Seeds from plants grown in an 

aquarium have been seen sticking to the aquarium sides and germinating 1-2 weeks after falling 

from the parent plant (Johnson et al. 1992). 

After a flood, umbel can rapidly expand its population and occupy disturbed habitat until 

interspecific competition exceeds its tolerance. This response was recorded at Sonoita Creek in 

August 1988, when a scouring flood removed about 95% of the umbel population (Gori et al. 

1990). One year later, the umbel had recolonized the stream and was again codominant with 

watercress (Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum, Warren et al. 1991). However, two patches of 

umbel on the San Pedro River were lost during a winter flood in 1994, and the species had still 

not recolonized that area as of May 1995, demonstrating the dynamic and often precarious nature 

of occurrences within a riparian system (Al Anderson, Grey Hawk Ranch, in litt. 1995). The 

expansion and contraction of umbel populations appear to depend on the presence of “refugia”

where the species can escape the effects of scouring floods, a watershed that has an unaltered 

hydrograph, and a healthy riparian community that stabilizes the channel.

Density of umbel plants and size of populations fluctuate in response to both flood cycles and 

site characteristics. Some sites, such as Black Draw, have a few sparsely distributed clones, 

possibly due to the dense shade of the even-aged overstory of trees, dense non-native herbaceous 

layer beneath the canopy, and deeply entrenched channel. The Sonoita Creek population 

occupies 14.5 percent of a 5,385 square foot patch of habitat (Gori et al. 1990). Some 

populations are as small as 11 to 22 square feet. The Scotia Canyon population, by contrast, has 

dense mats of leaves. Scotia Canyon contains one of the larger umbel populations, occupying 

about 57% of the 4,756 foot perennial reach (Gori et al. 1990, Falk and Warren 1994). 

While the extent of occupied habitat can be estimated, the number of individuals in each 

population is difficult to determine because of the intermeshing nature of the creeping rhizomes 

and the predominantly asexual mode of reproduction. A “population” of umbel may be

composed of one or many genetically distinct individuals. 

Threats 

Overgrazing, mining, hay harvesting, timber harvest, fire suppression, and other activities in the 

nineteenth century led to widespread erosion and channel entrenchment in southeastern Arizona 

streams and cienegas when above-average precipitation and flooding occurred in the late 1800s 

and early 1900s (Bryan 1925, Martin 1975, Hastings and Turner 1980, Dobyns 1981, 

Hendrickson and Minckley 1984, Sheridan 1986, Bahre 1991, Webb and Betancourt 1992, 
301

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Hereford 1993). A major earthquake near Batepito, Sonora, approximately 40 miles south of the 

upper San Pedro Valley, resulted in land fissures, changes in groundwater elevation, and spring 

flow, and may have preconditioned the San Pedro River channel for rapid flood-induced 

entrenchment (Hereford 1993, 

Geraghty and Miller, Inc. 1995). These events contributed to long-term or permanent 

degradation and loss of cienega and riparian habitat on the San Pedro River and throughout 

southeastern Arizona and northeastern Sonora. Much habitat of the umbel and other cienegadependent species was presumably lost at that time. 

Wetland degradation and loss continues today. Human activities such as groundwater overdrafts, 

surface water diversions, impoundments, channelization, improper livestock grazing, chaining, 

agriculture, mining, sand and gravel operations, road building, non-native species introductions, 

urbanization, wood cutting, and recreation all contribute to riparian and cienega habitat loss and 

degradation in southern Arizona. The local and regional effects of these activities are expected 

to increase with the increasing human population. 

Limited numbers of populations and the small size of populations make the umbel vulnerable to 

extinction as a result of stochastic events that are often exacerbated by habitat disturbance. For 

instance, the restriction of this taxon to a relatively small area in southeastern Arizona and 

adjacent areas of Mexico increases the chance that a single environmental catastrophe, such as a 

severe tropical storm or drought, could eliminate populations or cause extinction. Populations 

are in most cases isolated, as well, which makes the chance of natural recolonization after 

extirpation less likely. Small populations are also subject to demographic and genetic 

stochasticity, which increases the probability of population extirpation (Shafer 1990, Wilcox and 

Murphy 1985). 

Critical Habitat 

Seven Critical Habitat units have been designated for umbel; all are in Santa Cruz and Cochise 

counties, Arizona, and include stream courses and adjacent areas out to the beginning of upland 

vegetation. The Scotia, Sunnyside, and Bear canyon units (3, 4, and 6) are within the Coronado 

National Forest. The remaining Units are in lands adjacent to Forest lands. The following 

general areas are designated as critical habitat (see legal descriptions for exact critical habitat 

boundaries): 

Unit 1 Approximately 1.25 mile of Sonoita Creek southwest of Sonoita; 

Unit 2 Approximately 2.7 miles of the Santa Cruz River on both sides of Forest Road 61, plus 

approximately 1.9 miles of an unnamed tributary to the east of the river; 

Unit 3 Approximately 3.4 miles of Scotia Canyon upstream from near Forest Road 48; 

Unit 4 approximately 0.7 mile of Sunnyside Canyon near Forest Road 117 in the Huachuca 

Mountains; 

Unit 5 Approximately 3.8 miles of Garden Canyon near its confluence with Sawmill Canyon; 

Unit 6 Approximately 1.0 mile of Rattlesnake Canyon and 0.6 mile of an unnamed canyon, both 

of which are tributaries to Lone Mountain Canyon; approximately 1.0 mile of Lone 
302

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Mountain Canyon; and approximately 1.0 mile of Bear Canyon; an approximate 0.6-mile 

reach of an unnamed tributary to Bear Canyon; and 

Unit 7 Approximately 33.7 miles of the San Pedro River from the perennial flow reach north of 

Fairbank (Arizona Department of Water Resources 1991) to 0.13 mile south of Hereford, 

San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area. 

The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for umbel include, but are not limited to, the 

habitat components that provide: 

1. Sufficient perennial base flows to provide a permanently or nearly permanently wetted 

substrate for growth and reproduction of umbel;

2. A stream channel that is relatively stable, but subject to periodic flooding that provides 

for rejuvenation of the riparian plant community and produces open microsites for umbel 

expansion;

3. A riparian plant community that is relatively stable over time and in which non-native 

species do not exist or are at a density that has little or no adverse effect on resources 

available for umbel growth and reproduction; and

4. In streams and rivers, refugial sites in each watershed and in each reach, including but not 

limited to springs or backwaters of mainstem rivers that allow each population to survive 

catastrophic floods and recolonize larger areas.

Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat include those that alter the 

primary constituent elements to the extent that the value of critical habitat for both the survival 

and recovery of umbel is appreciably diminished. Such activities are also likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the species. 

Environmental Baseline - Huachuca Water Umbel 

The action area for the Huachuca water umbel includes the occupied portions of the Cienega 

Creek watershed, as described below. Prior to 2001, the sole Huachuca water umbel 

metapopulation known from the action area was in Empire Gulch in Las Cienegas National 

Conservation Area (NCA) [Engineering and Environmental Consultants (EEC) 2001, Pima 

County 2001]. Since that time, the species has been found in other locations within the action 

area: in a small patch along Cienega Creek in the county’s reserve upstream from of the 

confluence of Cienega Creek and Davidson Canyon (EEC 2001, Pima County 2001); in Las 

Cienegas NCA, from the confluence of Cienega Creek with Gardner Canyon north to the 

northern boundary of the NCA; in middle reaches of Cienega Creek (AGFD 2011); and, via 

recent transplants, in the Cieneguita Wetland in lower Empire Gulch (BLM 2013). The 

Huachuca water umbel metapopulations within Las Cienegas NCA include (BLM 2011): (1) 19 

patches recorded between the headwaters of Cienega Creek near the southern boundary of the 

NCA, north to the confluence of Cienega Creek with Gardner Canyon; (2) 61 patches recorded 

between the confluence of Cienega Creek with Mattie Canyon, north to Powerline Road; (3) 16 

patches recorded within Cienega Creek between the Narrows Powerline Road, north to the 

Narrows; (4) one patch recorded within Lower Empire Gulch between Rattlesnake Tank and the 
303

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

confluence with Cienega Creek; and (5) three patches recorded within Mattie Canyon between 

the spring source and the confluence with Cienega Creek. Much of the extensive wetlands that 

border Empire Gulch and upper Cienega Creek (see the Aquatic Vegetation subsection in the 

Description of the Proposed Action section and Table A-1) are likely to be suitable sites for 

Huachuca water umbel, even if the species has not been specifically detected throughout the 

reaches. There is no critical habitat for Huachuca water umbel in the action area. 

The Pima Association of Governments (PAG) monitors ecological conditions on Cienega Creek 

within the Pima County Cienega Creek Preserve and reports the data to the Pima County 

Regional Flood Control District (RFCD) (Mier 2012 pers. comm.). Recent drought conditions 

and anthropogenic alterations have affected the stream’s hydrology. As of the summer of 2012, 

the length of wetted stream within the Preserve was 1.24 miles, the shortest in a period of record 

going back to 1975. This contrasts to the wet years of the early 1980s when up 9.5 miles of the 

creek within the Preserve exhibited perennial flow. PAG has found that stream discharge and 

groundwater levels are correlated to streamflow length, matching the rise and fall of the seasons 

and the downward trend with drought. Since September 2009, when the region lacked a 

monsoon season, the wells have remained at 5-7 feet below their pre-drought levels, with levels 

in June 2012 slightly below last June 2011 and 7 feet below pre-drought. Stream volume is at 

14% of pre-drought flow (similar to flow length's comparison), with 0.12 cfs flowing. 

Cienega Creek is thus susceptible to inter-annual changes in weather as well as longer-term 

changes in the regional climate. Anthropogenic impacts act to further reduce the stream’s 

hydrologic resilience. For example, PAG stated that the Arizona Department of Transportation 

pumped water from the alluvium while constructing a new overpass at Marsh Station Road in 

2010 and 2011, and this withdrawal appears to have been a factor contributing to approximately 

10 feet of groundwater decline in the two wells nearest the pumping site. PAG also noted that 

there has been some recovery since that time. 

We have completed one other formal consultation (and a reinitiation thereof) within the action 

area for a project affecting Huachuca water umbel: our February 21, 2012, Reinitiated Biological 

Opinion on Aquatic Species Conservation at the San Pedro Riparian and Las Cienegas National 

Conservation Areas, Arizona (File number 22410-2012-F-0162-R001), and its predecessor 

consultation, our December 31, 2008, Biological Opinion on Aquatic Species Conservation at 

the San Pedro Riparian and Las Cienegas National Conservation Areas, Arizona (File number 

22410-2008-F-0103). These proposed actions included measures to restore Huachuca water 

umbel to sites within the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area (RNCA) and within 

Las Cienegas National Conservation Area (NCA); the latter is within the action area for the 

proposed action. To date, the species has only been reestablished within the San Pedro RNCA. 

Effects of the Action - Huachuca Water Umbel 

Huachuca water umbel is an aquatic to semi-aquatic plant that requires adjacency to open water 

and very moist substrates. As such, the effects to the species are in many respects similar to 

those of threatened and endangered fishes as well as to the woody riparian vegetation that serves 

as a nesting and foraging substrate for obligate riparian birds. The sections of this BO pertaining 
304

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

to the effects of the proposed action to Gila chub and southwestern willow flycatcher describe 

the process whereby stream flows would be diminished to the extent that aquatic habitat is 

reduced and riparian vegetation reduced in vigor and areal extent, respectively. These analyses 

are hereby incorporated into this section via reference. 

Leenhouts et al. (2005) examined interactions between hydrologic processes and riparian 

vegetation within the San Pedro RNCA on the San Pedro River, a neighboring watershed 

situated east of the Cienega Creek system. The specific objectives of the study were to: (1) 

determine the water needs of riparian vegetation through the riparian growing season; (2) to 

quantify the total water use of riparian vegetation; and (3) to determine the source of water used 

by key riparian plant species. The authors integrated analyses of vegetation functional groups, 

groundwater and surface water hydrology, and spatial and temporal variations thereof. 

Although Huachuca water umbel occurs in the San Pedro RNCA, this species was not 

specifically evaluated by Leenhouts et al. (2005). Huachuca water umbel would fall within the 

authors’ Hydric Herbaceous Perennial functional group which includes smooth scouring rush 

(Equisetum laevigatum), hardstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus), Torrey rush (Juncus 

torreyi), cattail (Typha latifolia and T. domingensis), watercress (Rorippa nasturtiumaquaticum), water speedwell (Veronica anagallis-aquatica), sand spikerush (Eleocharis 

montevidensis), and Baltic rush (J. arcticus var. balticus). Leenhouts et al. (2005) found that 

cover of hydric perennial herbs was most abundant in an approximately 1-meter wide strip along 

the channel margins; these species depend on shallow, inflowing ground water to sustain stream 

base flows and moisten surface soils. This group had high abundance only at sites with perennial 

or near-perennial streamflow, declining sharply in abundance as flows became intermittent as 

well as across floodplains of increasing elevation above the stream. While the Leenhouts et al. 

(2005) study was conducted on the San Pedro River, the physiologic needs of hydric perennial 

plants would indicate similar ecological responses within any stream in which they occur, 

including the nearby Cienega Creek system. 

Leenhouts et al. (2005) also examined the spatial arrangement of plants in relation to streamflow 

permanence (as a surrogate for depth to groundwater) in order to assess the changes that could 

occur under conditions of declining groundwater levels. As streamflow became more 

intermittent and depth to the alluvial ground-water table increased, herbaceous species, such as 

bulrush and rushes, declined in abundance. In addition, streamside-zone species composition 

shifted towards more mesic herbaceous species, including the nonnative rhizomatous perennial 

Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon). This sod-forming species is relatively drought- and floodtolerant and became the most common mesic riparian perennial as stream flow became 

intermittent (Stromberg et al. 2005).

Huachuca water umbel, with its shallow root system, is a poor competitor; population numbers 

tend to be lower in areas with a high density of native or nonnative plant species competition 

(Titus et al. 2002). As Huachuca water umbel is sensitive to interspecific competition, requiring 

both ample light penetration and little competition for nutrients (Zuhlke et al. 2002, Vernadero 

2011, USFWS 2001), competition from Bermuda grass will hasten the decline of the listed 

species in sites where alluvial groundwater levels have declined but still occasionally remain 
305

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

within the range that would otherwise support a hydric herbaceous perennial plant community. 

Other researchers studying Huachuca water umber in the San Pedro RNCA have noted that 

Bermuda grass presence reduces the number of exploitable sites for Huachuca water umbel 

making it a threat to umbel dispersal (Vernadero 2011).

Effects to the Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystems - Huachuca Water Umbel 

The section in this BO entitled Effects to Aquatic Ecosystems describes the hydrologic basis for 

effects to the streams in which Huachuca water umbel occurs. The subsequent analysis of effects 

to riparian vegetation, of which the species is a component, appears in the Effects to Riparian 

Ecosystems section. These prior analyses are incorporated herein via reference. 

Based on these prior analyses, we are particularly concerned with the modeled drawdowns in 

Empire Gulch, in the vicinity of Empire Gulch’s confluence with Cienega Creek, and at the 

Gardner Canyon/Cienega Creek confluence within Las Cienegas NCA, as well as within the 

lowermost reaches of Cienega Creek, such as in the Pima County Cienega Creek Preserve. The 

relevant aspects of these analyses are reiterated in the narrative that follows. 

Gardner Canyon 

Gardner Canyon is anticipated to experience regional aquifer drawdowns of < 0.1 foot from the 

cessation of mining until 50 years later (or up to 0.15 foot at 50 years) (see Gardner/Cienega 

Confluence data in Table A-5). At 150 years after mining, the effect to Gardner Canyon 

increases to 0.2 foot (or up to 0.35 foot) and reaches 0.5 foot at 1,000 years. 

Empire Gulch 

Tetra Tech (2010) modeled the effects at this site to range from 0.1 foot (or up to 0.2 foot) of 

groundwater drawdown upon cessation of mining to 0.2 foot (or up to 0.5 foot) at 20 years, 0.5 

(up to 1.8 foot) foot at 50 years, 2.5 feet (up to 5.0 foot) at 150 years, and 6 feet at 1,000 years 

(see Table A-5). 

Upper Cienega Creek 

The USGS Cienega Creek stream gage (0948550) is situated near the narrows in the upstream 

portion of Reach 3 (see Figure A-1). Tetra Tech (2010) modeled drawdowns of <0.1 foot from 

the end of mining and at 20, and 50 years later (or up to 0.15 foot at 50 years). Drawdowns 

reach 0.25 feet (or up to 0.35 foot) and 0.5 feet at 150 and 1,000 years, respectively. Table A-2, 

also found in the Effects to Aquatic Ecosystems section, is based on SWCA (2012), and 

describes appreciable effects to upper Cienega Creek, including an 0.16-mile decrease in stream 

length, a decrease in baseflow of 0.02 cfs, and a decrease in riparian ET of 51 afa. 

Lower Cienega Creek 

Tetra Tech (2010) modeled groundwater drawdowns of <0.01 foot at the lowermost USGS 
306

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

stream gage in Cienega Creek at all intervals from the cessation of mining to 1,000 years; this is 

to be expected at such a large distance from the mine pit. The loss of runoff from the placement 

of tailings in Barrel Canyon has a relatively greater effect. 

Given SWCA’s finding that Davidson Canyon Wash will experience a 4.3 percent reduction in 

runoff (surface flows) from the placement of tailings in its watershed and the Pima Association 

of Governments’ (2003b) estimate that the wash contributes 8 to 24 percent of the baseflow in 

Lower Cienega Creek, we anticipate that there will be a 0.3 to 1.0 percent reduction in the latter 

stream. 

As discussed above, Table 7 in SWCA (2012) (also see Table A-5 in this document) summarizes 

various hydrologic and environmental effects resulting from groundwater drawdowns. Table A3, in the Effects to Aquatic Ecosystems section, includes the SWCA (2012) findings wherein 

lower Cienega Creek will experience 0.31 foot of drawdown, no loss of stream length, a 0.02 cfs 

loss of discharge, and 8 afa in reduced riparian ET at 150 years after mining. By 1,000 years, 

SWCA (2012) predicted 0.98 foot of drawdown, a 0.29-mile reduction in stream length, a 0.04 

cfs loss of discharge, and 221 afa in reduced riparian ET. The latter effects are appreciable. 

Summary of Adverse Effects - Huachuca Water Umbel 

We reiterate that the 5-foot threshold for reliably modeling changes in ground water elevation 

posited by SRK (2012) does not mean we cannot consider changes of less than that magnitude. 

Moreover, the results of the groundwater models have much greater utility in determining trends 

in groundwater elevation than in determining actual values and/or magnitudes of change. In this 

regard, the aquatic habitat of the Huachuca water umbel (occupied areas in Empire Gulch and 

Cienega Creek) is likely to experience a contraction in wetted length and a reduced wetted 

perimeter (which may also be expressed as a narrowing of top-width). 

As discussed in the effects analysis for the southwestern willow flycatcher (see below), reduced 

surface flows characterize the most visible aspect of riparian effects, but don’t describe their full 

extent. Moreover, the flycatcher analysis was concerned primarily with the sustenance and 

recruitment of woody riparian vegetation; the effects to a near-aquatic plant such as Huachuca 

water umbel would be more immediate and severe. Surface flows in alluvial reaches of Cienega 

Creek exist in locations where the thalweg (lowest elevation portion of the channel) of the stream 

intersects the alluvial water table. A longitudinal contraction in surface flows would be a 

component of a more-lengthy (and also longitudinal) reduction in shallow, subsurface flows, 

with alluvial groundwater in areas adjacent to dewatered reaches also dropping below critical 

depths for Huachuca water umbel. In areas where the depth to groundwater has exceeded the 

species’ ability to access water, individual patches would senesce and eventually die unless they 

could: (1) reproduce asexually and access more moist microsites via the spread of rhizomes; 

and/or (2) colonize new, well-watered reaches via the spread of seeds generated in occupied sites 

upstream. A longitudinal contraction in surface flows would also be accompanied by a 

narrowing of the stream’s top width, and such a narrowing of a stream can be expected to result 

in Huachuca water umbel rooting closer to the centerline of the channel, as the water-dependent 

plant grows towards the remaining, available water. Additionally, plants tolerant of drier 
307

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

conditions, potentially including nonnative species, could colonize the less-well watered lateral 

sites and indirectly or directly compete with Huachuca water umbel. This is problematic in that 

the proposed action will leave flood flows in reaches above Davidson Canyon Wash largely 

unaffected. Vegetation that establishes itself in a narrowed low-flow channel will be subject to 

scouring from peak flows. Flood scour could be further exacerbated if the larger herbaceous and 

woody vegetative communities suffer mortality sufficient to reduce the stability of the stream’s 

banks, where Huachuca water umbel occurs. While Huachuca water umbel requires low to 

moderate severity floods to create niches for colonization, excessive flooding is intolerable to 

populations and may result in extinctions locally (Warren et al. 1991; Warren et al. 1989). 

Effects of the Proposed Conservation Measures - Huachuca Water Umbel 

The proposed action includes: (1) eight conservation measures specifically pertaining to aquatic 

species; (2) a Cienega Creek Watershed restoration and water right protection program; and (3) 

the restoration of wetlands within the Sonoita Creek Ranch (see the Aquatic Species: Gila Chub, 

Gila Topminnow, and Huachuca Water Umbel; Cienega Creek Watershed; and Sonoita Creek 

Ranch subsections in the Description of the Proposed Conservation Measures section, above). 

Six of the eight aquatic species conservation measures’ stated purpose is to implement various 

monitoring programs to: (1) verify groundwater model results (via monitoring wells in key 

locations); (2) to ensure the chemical integrity of the regional groundwater (via the Aquifer 

Protection Permit) and streams (via the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality’s 

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit: NPDES); and (3) assess alterations in 

channel geomorphology that may result from altered peak flow hydrology and sediment 

dynamics. The benefit of well monitoring is to obtain empirical data related to changes in 

groundwater storage, which may then be used to verify or update the groundwater models. The 

primary benefit of the monitoring of water quality is to provide an early warning and 

recommendation for corrective actions prior to the onset of gross changes in chemistry or 

geomorphology that would be most likely to kill or displace Huachuca water umbel. Successful 

implementation of these measures will help ensure that water quality remains within applicable 

standards, but we note that the tolerance of Huachuca water umbel to metals, changes in 

acidity/basicity, and other factors is not known. 

The Cienega Creek Watershed conservation measure contains two elements: (1) severance and 

transfer of water rights; and (2) establishment of the Cienega Creek Watershed Conservation 

Fund. The program commits to: (1) transfer 150 acre-feet of water rights to a suitable entity for 

in situ use to preserve and enhance the aquatic and riparian ecosystem use in the upper Cienega 

Creek watershed area and an additional 100 acre-feet to Pima County for similar uses within the 

Cienega Creek Preserve; (2) transfer 825 acre-feet per annum to aquifer recharge and riparian 

restorations downstream from Pantano Dam (at which point lower Cienega Creek becomes 

Pantano Wash); and (3) make annual payments of $200,000 for 10 years to a Conservation fund 

managed and controlled by a designated conservation partner. 

The Cienega Creek Watershed program may eventually have appreciable value in conserving 

Huachuca water umbel if the effort results in the retention of water in occupied areas. The 
308

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

mitigative value of the water rights- related component of the conservation measure must be 

considered speculative at this time, as the action depends on the successful navigation of 

complex administrative and legal proceedings involving the Arizona Department of Water 

Resources and other State agencies, BLM, and, potentially, other permitted and certificated water 

rights holders. Recognizing this uncertainty, the Rosemont may require until January 1, 2016, to 

fully implement this proposed conservation measure. 

The proposed establishment and funding of the Cienega Creek Watershed Conservation Fund is 

anticipated to be beneficial to Huachuca water umbel, but its exact mitigative value is 

prospective and cannot be ascertained in advance. We presume that actions beneficial to the 

aquatic environment in which Huachuca water umbel occur will be implemented, and while we 

cannot know if such actions will be implemented, we note that reestablishment of Huachuca 

water umbel is feasible (Environment and Natural Resource Division 2012). Similarly, the 

anticipated 3,000 linear feet of surface flow that will be made available below Pantano Dam may 

permit the establishment of a Huachuca water umbel metapopulation, though it is not clear if 

Cienega Creek Watershed Conservation Fund monies could be applied at this downstream site. 

Rosemont has also acquired the right to purchase approximately 1,200 acres of land along 

Sonoita Creek with approximately 590 acre-feet of certificated surface water rights from Monkey 

Spring along Sonoita Creek. These lands and appurtenant water rights will be protected in 

perpetuity and made available to a suitable aganecy, land trust, or conservation organization. As 

is the case with Cienega Creek, above, the site, if deemed biologically appropriate, could provide 

a site for establishment of Huachuca water umbel. Given the current lack of specific plans to 

restore and maintain Huachuca water umbel at this site, we must also consider the mitigative 

value of this conservation measure to be somewhat speculative. 

Effects to Recovery 

There is no final recovery plan for the Huachuca water umbel, so it is difficult to determine at 

what point recovery of the species may be achieved. It is similarly difficult to determine at what 

point recovery would be precluded by the implementation of a proposed action. The Rosemont 

Copper Mine’s effects will likely reduce the wetted perimeter and length of streams occupied by 

Huachuca water umbel, but the streams will not be completely dewatered (see . Effects of the 

Action - Huachuca Water Umbel and subsequent analyses, above). We must therefore compare 

these unquantifiable reductions in abundance to the overall status of the species as well as to the 

mitigative value of the proposed conservation measures. 

The Cienega Creek system is one of several medium-scale watersheds in which Huachuca water 

umbel occurs (the others being situated within the larger San Pedro River watershed, the upper 

Santa Cruz River watershed, and in the Rio Yaqui watershed. These systems are all likely to 

experience diminished environmental conditions from regional climate change and increasing 

withdrawals of groundwater for human needs. At the most coarse scale, we feel that it is 

reasonable to assume that recovery of Huachuca water umbel would be precluded if the species 

were to be extirpated from one or more of these watersheds. Such extirpation would likely 

require long-term losses of surface water in habitats occupied by the species. Conversely, we feel 
309

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

that recovery of the species could be achieved if the surface flows in these watersheds were 

secured, if not increased in volume and length, in perpetuity. We caution that this is not a de 

facto recovery criterion; downlisting and delisting criteria, as applicable, will be fully developed 

during recovery planning. Neverthless, we feel that the diminished flows in the Cienega Creek 

system that are likely to result from the proposed action are not of sufficient scale (stream length 

and potential number of individuals) to preclude recovery. We also feel that the Cienega Creek 

Watershed Fund and the acquisition and restoration of the Sonoita Creek Ranch, should they 

achieve their stated goals and incorporate the species into their plans, will make incremental 

contributions to Huachuca water umbel recovery. 

Cumulative Effects - Huachuca Water Umbel 

The Cumulative Effects sections for the Gila chub and southwestern willow flycatcher are 

incorporated herein via reference. In brief, of the cumulative actions relevant to the proposed 

action, we are primarily concerned with the withdrawal of groundwater from wells in vicinity of 

Cienega Creek, Sonoita, and Elgin. 

Conclusion - Huachuca Water Umbel 

The magnitude of the proposed action’s adverse effects is difficult to ascertain in light of natural 

variability and uncertainties regarding baseline conditions that may change independently from 

the effects of the proposed action change over time, but all three groundwater models indicate 

that the proposed action will result in a small – but measurable - downward trend in groundwater 

availability and surface discharges. We anticipate that an indeterminate number of individual 

Huachuca water umbel patches will fail to persist in Cienega Creek and Empire Gulch over time, 

and that Huachuca water umbel metapopulations will be reduced in extent at the scale of the 

stream reach. It is, however, unlikely that the proposed action will result in large reductions of 

perennial stream reaches in the action area and thus, Huachuca water umbel is unlikely to be 

extirpated from the Cienega Creek watershed. Lastly, the mitigative value of the proposed 

conservation measures is currently speculative, but could result in the restoration of Huachuca 

water umbel to new sites and long-term protection of stream flows. 

After reviewing the current status of Huachuca water umbel, the environmental baseline for the 

action area, the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is our biological 

opinion that the proposed Rosemont Mine project is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the species. Our rationale for this conclusion is as follows: 

1. Modeled declines groundwater elevation will result in decrease in stream length, wetted 

perimeter and baseflows in the Cienega Creek Watershed at time scales varying from 20 

to 1,000 years. If groundwater model results and the associated deceases in stream length 

and baseflow are valid, these losses will be potentially severe in Empire Gulch, minimal 

in the upper and low reaches of the mainstem of Cienega Creek, and will reduce the vigor 

and extent of Huachuca water umbel in the affected areas. 
310

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

2. These effects to Huachuca water umbel are not likely to jeopardize the species because it 

occurs elsewhere in the Santa Cruz, San Pedro, and Yaqui river watersheds in sites 

unaffected by the proposed action. 

3. The relatively wide distribution of the Huachuca water umbel within distinct watersheds 

and the low likelihood that the proposed action will extirpate the species entirely from the 

Cienega Creek watershed mean that the proposed action is unlikely to preclude recovery. 

4. Rosemont will monitor water quality and quantity as well as channel geometry within 

Davidson Canyon Wash (a tributary to Cienega Creek), any or all of which may help 

validate model results and provide advanced notice for unforeseen effects to the aquatic 

environment. Unforeseen effects to aquatic and riparian ecosystems may necessitate 

reinitiation of formal consultation. 

5. Rosemont will sever and transfer downstream senior water rights to upstream reaches of 

Cienega Creek by no later than January 1, 2016. If successfully executed, these in situ

water rights may be employed to protect against future diversions of surface water by 

junior appropriators. Rosemont will also fund a conservation program to implement tobe-determined projects within the Cienega Creek watershed. If the water rights cannot be 

successfully severed and transferred, reinitiation of formal consultation may be 

warranted.

6. Rosemont has also acquired the rights to purchase the Sonoita Creek Ranch and, upon 

transfer to a suitable entity, the site will undergo aquatic, wetland, and riparian 

restorations. These projects will be vetted by FWS and other appropriate entities, and 

may include the reestablishment of Huachuca water umbel. 

7. Critical habitat has been designated for Huachuca water umbel, but none is present in the 

action area. Critical habitat will not be affected nor will that critical habitat’s ability to 

function in the recovery of the species be impaired.

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT - HUACHUCA WATER UMBEL 

Sections 7(b)(4) and 7(o)(2) of the Act generally do not apply to listed plant species. However, 

limited protection of listed plants from take is provided to the extent that the Act prohibits the 

removal and reduction to possession of Federally listed endangered plants from areas under 

Federal jurisdiction, or for any act that would remove, cut, dig up, or damage or destroy any such 

species on any other area in knowing violation of any regulation of any State or in the course of 

any violation of a State criminal trespass law. 

Conservation Recommendations - Huachuca Water Umbel 

Sections 2(c) and 7(a)(1) of the Act direct Federal agencies to use their authorities to further the 

purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of listed species. 

Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid effects 

of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or to 

develop information. 
311

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

1. We recommend that the FS participate in recovery planning efforts for the Huachuca water 

umbel. We will be preparing a recovery plan in the near future and would like to incorporate 

agency expertise. 

2. We recommend that the FS continue with its ongoing efforts to arrest erosion and restore 

ecosystems on streams on the Coronado National Forest within which Huachuca water 

umbel occurs.

3. We recommend that the FS participate in genetic studies, such as those underway by Fort 

Huachuca, in order to determine population and metapopulation dynamics of Huachuca 

water umbel throughout its range. 

To be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or benefiting listed 

species or their habitats, we request notification of the implementation of any conservation 

recommendations. 

Effects to Riparian Ecosystems 

This section includes an analysis of the effects of the proposed action on riparian ecosystems. 

The southwestern willow flycatcher is an obligate riparian bird and the Huachuca water umbel is 

a semi-aquatic plant that occurs in streams and riparian areas; the analyses contained herein are 

incorporated via reference into the respective species’ analyses.

Effects to the riparian ecosystems must be based on a classification system. Riparian vegetation 

may be classified in various ways. Brown (1982), National Wetlands Inventory (2013) methods 

are widely applied, but available maps are outdated and are of insufficiently fine resolution to be 

applicable to the action area. Three sources of riparian mapping are available for the area of 

analysis: Pima County, the Forest Service, and WestLand Resources Inc. (the latter conducted 

on behalf of Rosemont Copper). Each source represents different techniques, definitions, and 

geographic coverage. The Draft EIS used a combination of these mapping sources, primarily 

relying on mapping by WestLand Resources Inc. for the mine site and on Pima County mapping 

to define hydroriparian and mesoriparian areas elsewhere along major stream corridors. 

The Coronado NF considered both public comments and input from cooperating agencies 

regarding riparian classification and has determined to employ the Pima County riparian 

mapping source in the eventual Final EIS. The Forest Service’s own mapping coverage was 

considered too limited in geographic extent and largely ignored xeroriparian areas. The Pima 

County mapping was largely based on remote photographic analysis and generally encompassed 

a wider swath along washes than the mapping efforts conducted by WestLand Resources Inc., 

which were based in part on field surveys. However, the underlying purpose of the Pima County 

riparian mapping was to identify corridors of overall wildlife habitat, whereas the site-specific 

mapping by WestLand Resources Inc. focused on identifying the extent of specific vegetation 

species. Determining the presence of wider habitat corridors and their impact to biological 

resources was one of the primary purposes of analyzing impacts to riparian vegetation for NEPA 

purposes, and this largely informed the Coronado NF’s decision to select the Pima County 
312

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

mapping. Use of the Pima County mapping offers three benefits: an appropriate focus on habitat 

corridors, consistency across the area of analysis, and extensive geographic coverage. It is for 

these reasons that we have adopted the same riparian classification method in this BO. 

It is recognized that discrepancies have arisen between the Pima County and WestLand 

Resources, Inc. mapping efforts. WestLand Resources Inc. (2010) noted that Pima County 

mapping overestimated riparian resources 86% of the time in 43 riparian area widths measured in 

Barrel and Scholefield Canyons. These differences in acreage were determined by the Coronado 

NF to be acceptable for NEPA analysis, given the different criteria used by Pima County. 

However, in several reaches of Barrel and Davidson Canyons, discrepancies were also evident 

concerning the overall species types indicated by Pima County mapping and those observed in 

the field by WestLand Resources Inc. In these cases, acreages were not been changed, but the 

overall type of habitat was reinterpreted from that used by Pima County. For the purposes of the 

analyses contained in this BO, the areal extent of impacts to riparian vegetation represents the 

maximum anticipated effect of the proposed action. 

There are a total of approximately 22,106 acres of riparian vegetation in the analysis area (Pima 

County 2012; USFS 2012d, as cited in the Description of the Proposed Action section). These 

vegetation communities are present in drainages within the analysis area and along downstream 

portions of Box, McCleary, Sycamore, Scholefield, Wasp, Barrel, Davidson, and Gardner 

Canyons; Empire Gulch; and Cienega Creek. In addition to the riparian vegetation listed below 

as occurring in riparian areas in the analysis area, Emory oak, Mexican blue oak, and Arizona 

white oak are common in Box, McCleary, Sycamore, Scholefield, Wasp, and Barrel Canyons. 

While many springs support some individuals of species considered to indicate hydroriparian 

habitat, only two springs had large mappable areas of hydroriparian vegetation: Scholefield No. 

1 spring supports about 0.3 acre of wetland, and Fig Tree spring supports about 0.5 acre of 

riparian habitat, with a very limited wetland area. These water sources provide habitat for aquatic 

species within the analysis area. Pima County’s riparian mapping source is used for this project, 

and the following riparian habitat types are mapped within the analysis area (Pima County 2013). 

Detailed descriptions of the respective communities are found in the Vegetative Communities 

subsection of the Description of the Proposed Action section. 

Hydroriparian 

Hydroriparian habitats are generally associated with perennial watercourses and/or springs. The 

following drainages and associated riparian habitat contain stretches that are mapped as 

hydroriparian: Cienega Creek, Gardner Canyon, Empire Gulch, Davidson Canyon, and Barrel 

Canyon. Approximately 7,325 acres of hydroriparian habitat are located within the action area. 

Aquatic vegetation that is unique to the springs and seeps is also present within the analysis area. 

Vegetation at these springs and seeps includes obligate wetland plants. Within the analysis area, 

moist soil or surface water (both lentic and lotic systems) and associated aquatic vegetation are 

known to occur at the several springs (e.g., Deering, Upper Empire Gulch, Fig Tree, Mudhole, 

Oak, Ojo Blanco, Rosemont, Scholefield No. 1, Sycamore, and Water Develop) (WestLand 

Resources Inc. 2011j). Areas of aquatic habitats are too small to map; therefore, they do not 
313

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

appear on Figure I-4, below. 

Xeroriparian 

Xeroriparian habitats are generally associated with an ephemeral water supply. These 

communities typically contain plant species also found in upland habitats; however, these plants 

are typically larger and/or occur at higher densities than adjacent uplands. Approximately 

14,781 acres of xeroriparian habitat are located within the action area. Xeroriparian habitat is 

further divided into four subclasses to reflect the amount of vegetation present. Pima County 

Regional Flood Control District’s Regulated Riparian Habitat Mitigation Standards and 

Implementation Guidelines (Pima County Department of Transportation and Flood Control 

District 2001; Pima County Regional Flood Control District 2011) define the xeroriparian 

subcategories as follows: 

• Xeroriparian A: The most dense xeroriparian subcategory with a total vegetative volume 

greater than 0.856 m3/m2. Xeroriparian A habitat is present in stretches of Cienega Creek, 

Empire Gulch, and Davidson Canyon where vegetation consists of mesquite and netleaf 

hackberry. Approximately 145 acres of xeroriparian A habitat is located within the analysis area. 

• Xeroriparian B: Moderately dense xeroriparian subcategory with a total vegetative volume less 

than or equal to 0.856 m3/m2and greater than 0.675 m3/m2. Xeroriparian B habitat is present in 

stretches of Cienega Creek, Gardner Canyon, Empire Gulch, Davidson Canyon, and Barrel 

Canyon where vegetation consists of mesquite, scattered cottonwood, netleaf hackberry, 

burrobrush, juniper, and acacia. Approximately 7,116 acres of xeroriparian B habitat is located 

within the analysis area. 

• Xeroriparian C: Less dense xeroriparian subcategory with a total vegetative volume less than or 

equal to 0.675 m3/m2

and greater than 0.500 m3/m2. Xeroriparian C habitat is present in stretches 

of Cienega Creek, Gardner Canyon, Empire Gulch, and Davidson Canyon where vegetation 

consists of mesquite, desert broom, burrobush, desert willow, hackberry, and juniper. 

Approximately 7,345 acres of xeroriparian C habitat is located within the analysis area. 

• Xeroriparian D: Less to sparse plant density xeroriparian subcategory that provides hydrologic 

connectivity to other riparian habitat areas with a total vegetative volume less than or equal to 

0.500 m3/m2. Xeroriparian D habitat is present in stretches of Cienega Creek and Davidson 

Canyon where vegetation consists of acacia and desert broom. Approximately 174 acres of 

xeroriparian D habitat is located within the analysis area. 

Aquatic Vegetation 

Aquatic vegetation is unique to the springs and seeps within the action area and includes obligate 

wetland plants (i.e., almost always occurs under natural conditions in wetlands). Within the 

action area, moist soil or surface water (both lentic and lotic systems) and associated aquatic 

vegetation are known to occur at the following springs (WestLand 2011a): Basin, Deering, 

Empire Gulch, Fig Tree, Mudhole, Oak, Ojo Blanco, Rosemont, Scholefield, Sycamore, and 
314

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Water Develop. 

Information provided by the BLM during the review of the draft version of the BO notes that 

these aquatic vegetation communities, along with those present along cienega-like reaches of 

Cienega Creek and its tributaries should be classified as Interior (Sonoran) Marshland (Brown 

1982). These Cienega communities (Minckley and Brown 1982, Hendrickson and Minckley 

1984) are prevalent in the Las Cienegas NCA; the area contains over 30 jurisdictional wetlands, 

both perennial and seasonal. Most of these wetlands occur on the Cienega Creek floodplain 

between Cinco Canyon and Oak Tree Canyon. Named wetland complexes include Cieneguita 

Wetland, Spring Water Wetland, Cinco Ponds Wetland. Another series of wetlands occurs 

upstream of the Mattie Canyon confluence on Cienega Creek (Cold Spring Wetland). These 

wetlands cover tens of acres. An inventory of wetlands has been completed by the Arizona 

Botanical Garden with a report anticipated to be transmitted in September 2013.

Areas of aquatic habitats were considered too small to map by USFS; therefore, they do not 

appear on Figure I-4, below. The BLM, in comments on the content of the Draft BO, stated that 

Cienaga Cienega Creek exhibits approximately 7 miles of surface flow. In addition, Empire 

Gulch has approximately 0.5 mile, Empire Spring approximately 1,000 feet, and Mattie Canyon 

approximately 1 mile. The BLM also stated that large blocks of wetland also occur which could 

easily be delineated on a map. We note that aquatic habitat in the context of this section refers 

to vegetative communities, not solely wetted areas. While we agree that mapping cold be 

improved, it is likely that the aquatic vegetative community mapping was superseded by 

mapping of the dominant overstory (i.e. xerioriparian or hydroriparian) that may co-occur with 

the understory of Interior Marshland in many sites. 

Again, more-detailed descriptions of the riparian communities appears in the Vegetative 

Communities subsection of the Description of the Proposed Action section, above. Table R-1, 

below, summarizes the acreages of riparian vegetation within the affected streams, using the 

reach-by-reach classification found in Figure A-1 in the Effects to Aquatic Ecosystems section. 

Table R-1. Riparian affected environment adapted from SWCA (2012)

Reach Name Acres Pima County Class Dominant Riparian Plants

Cienega Creek 1 695.13 Hydroriparian Cottonwood and Goodding’s willow**

Cienega Creek 1 364.69 Xeroriparian B Large mesquites and scrub mesquites with scattered cottonwoods**

Cienega Creek 2 2,086.96 Hydroriparian Mature cottonwood and Goodding’s willow**

Cienega Creek 2 323.98 Xeroriparian B Acacia, desert willow, ironwood, paloverde, mesquite, soapberry*

Cienega Creek 2 65.58 Xeroriparian C Acacia, desert willow, ironwood, paloverde, mesquite, soapberry*

Cienega Creek 3 382.27 Hydroriparian Mature cottonwood and Goodding’s willow with young velvet ash**

Cienega Creek 3 35.88 Xeroriparian B Mesquite and netleaf hackberry**

Cienega Creek 3 126.96 Xeroriparian C Mesquite with desert broom and burrobrush**

Cienega Creek 3 0.78 Xeroriparian D Acacia, desert willow, ironwood paloverde, mesquite, soapberry*

Cienega Creek 4 11.15 Xeroriparian A Mature mesquite and netleaf hackberry**

Cienega Creek 4 179.52 Xeroriparian B Mesquites with burrobrush**

Cienega Creek 4 656.81 Xeroriparian C Less dense mesquites with burrobrush**

Cienega Creek 4 38.58 Xeroriparian D Acacia, desert willow, ironwood, paloverde, mesquite, soapberry*

Cienega Creek 4 2138.93 Hydroriparian Mature cottonwoods and ash with some Goodding’s and seep willow**

Cienega Creek 5 4.86 Xeroriparian A Mesquite**

Cienega Creek 5 21.75 Xeroriparian B Mesquites with burrobrush**

Cienega Creek 5 168.15 Xeroriparian C Less dense mesquites with desert broom and burrobrush**

Cienega Creek 5 49.91 Xeroriparian D Acacia, desert willow, ironwood, paloverde, mesquite, soapberry*

Cienega Creek 5 463.95 Hydroriparian Cottonwood and willow gallery forest**

Gardner Canyon 1 422.26 Xeroriparian B Acacia, desert willow, ironwood, paloverde, mesquite, soapberry*
315

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Gardner Canyon 1 381.08 Xeroriparian C Acacia, desert willow, ironwood, paloverde, mesquite, soapberry*

Gardner Canyon 1 523.96 Hydroriparian Cottonwood, willow, seepwillow, sycamore, hackberry*

Gardner Canyon 2 129.29 Xeroriparian B Acacia, desert willow, ironwood, paloverde, mesquite, soapberry*

Gardner Canyon 2 121.51 Hydroriparian Cottonwood, willow, seepwillow, sycamore, hackberry*

Empire Gulch 86.00 Xeroriparian A Acacia, desert willow, ironwood, paloverde, mesquite, soapberry*

Empire Gulch 631.39 Xeroriparian B Acacia, desert willow, ironwood, paloverde, mesquite, soapberry*

Empire Gulch 127.90 Xeroriparian C Acacia, desert willow, ironwood, paloverde, mesquite, soapberry*

Empire Gulch 407.46 Hydroriparian Large cottonwood willow gallery**

Davidson Canyon 1 84.03 Xeroriparian B Acacia, desert willow, ironwood, paloverde, mesquite, soapberry*

Davidson Canyon 1 99.20 Hydroriparian*** Large ash trees**

Davidson Canyon 2 355.61 Xeroriparian B Mesquites, hackberry**

Davidson Canyon 2 31.23 Xeroriparian C Small mesquites, desert willow**

Davidson Canyon 2 33.95 Xeroriparian D acacia, desert broom**

Davidson Canyon 2 570.38 Hydroriparian*** Seep willow, Arizona walnut, cottonwood**

Davidson Canyon 3 0.50 Xeroriparian B Juniper**

Davidson Canyon 3 28.93 Xeroriparian C Mesquite, hackberry**

Davidson Canyon 3 26.21 Xeroriparian D Desert broom, acacia**

Davidson Canyon 3 71.05 Hydroriparian*** Willows, ash, tamarisk**

Davidson Canyon 4 5.71 Xeroriparian A Large mesquite, hackberry**

Davidson Canyon 4 5.05 Xeroriparian B Mesquite**

Davidson Canyon 4 50.42 Xeroriparian C Small mesquite, juniper**

Davidson Canyon 4 3.27 Xeroriparian D Desert broom, acacia**

Davidson Canyon 4 174.78 Hydroriparian Willows, ash, tamarisk, and cottonwood**

Barrel Canyon 1 192.54 Hydroriparian*** Large mesquites, oak, juniper, desert willow, sumac**

Barrel Canyon 1 21.74 Xeroriparian B Small mesquites, juniper, hackberry**

Barrel Canyon 2 12.39 Hydroriparian*** Seep willow**

Total Hydroriparian 7,940.51

Total Xeroriparian A 107.72

Total Xeroriparian B 2,575.69

Total Xeroriparian C 1,637.06

Total Xeroriparian D 152.7

* From generic Pima County habitat type descriptions (Pima County Regional Flood Control District 2011). Note that BLM (2013) states that 

the habitat associations in Empire Gulch are not known to be present

** From actual field observations (WestLand Resources Inc. 2010, 2012a).

*** The Pima County habitat designation does not match field descriptions of species types; for purposes of analysis, these areas are 

onsidered xeroriparian/mesoriparian instead of hydroriparian

General Effects to Riparian Ecosystems 

The proposed action will affect riparian systems via the withdrawal of groundwater from the 

aquifer that sustains portions of springs and streams as well as by alterations in surface runoff 

patterns within the watershed of the streams. The hydrologic basis for these effects is discussed 

in detail within the Effects to Aquatic Ecosystems section, and is incorporated herein via 

reference. 

The effect of increased depth to groundwater on riparian vegetation has been investigated by 

Stromberg et al. (1996), Scott et al. (1999), Horton et al. (2001b), and Merritt and Bateman 

2012. Others have investigated riparian response to spatial variations in groundwater depth (i.e. 

as stream courses changed from perennial to intermittent along their course) (Leenhouts et al. 

2005, Stromberg et al. 2005; Stromberg et al. 2007a and 2007b), or changes resulting from the 

operation of impoundments (Horton et al. 2001a, Shafroth et al. 2002). It is also important to 

note that riparian vegetation tends to develop in response to local conditions; communities that 

exist in sites with highly variable alluvial groundwater levels tend to have rooting depths capable 

of withstanding relatively larger variations in groundwater level than sites where groundwater 

elevations are more consistent (Shafroth et al. 2000). The streams in the action area exhibit high 
316

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

variability. The variation was described by SWCA (2012), and was summarized in the Effects to 

Aquatic Ecosystems section. 

It is difficult to apply these prior investigations’ quantitative results directly to the action area, 

but one key finding is that increasing depths to groundwater will eventually result in downgrades 

of a given sites’ riparian community (i.e., hydroriparian communities would suffer decreased 

vigor and extent, eventually transitioning to a xeroriparian community). It is also possible that 

the groundwater declines resulting from the proposed action, while seemingly minor, will 

increase current or future levels of hydrologic variation to the point that present-day riparian 

communities cannot perpetuate themselves. 

Maintenance of existing stands of cottonwood and/or willow forests requires the presence of 

relatively shallow groundwater. Lite and Stromberg (2005) found that cottonwood and 

Goodding’s willow plants were able to compete successfully with non-native saltcedar plants 

when the maximum depth to groundwater was less than or equal to 8 feet. Leenhouts et al. 

(2005) found that cottonwoods and willow forests on the upper San Pedro River were dense and 

multiaged among sites where annual maximum ground-water depths averaged less than about 3 

meters (9.8 feet) (and where streamflow permanence was greater than about 60 percent, and 

intra-annual ground-water fluctuation was less than about 1 meter). Others have found the ideal 

depth appears to be approximately 3 to 5 feet, depending on the species and soil conditions at the 

site (Parametrix 2008). Cottonwood and willow growth and survival suffer from water stress 

when groundwater declines below key depth thresholds, particularly if the declines are rapid; the 

proposed action’s effects do not exhibit such immediacy. Seasonal declines of 1 meter have 

caused mortality of saplings of cottonwood and willow (Shafroth et al. 2000). Mature 

cottonwood trees have been killed by abrupt, permanent drops in the water table of 1 meter, with 

lesser declines (0.5 meter) reducing stem growth (Scott et al. 1999, 2000). 

The aforementioned depths to groundwater were in reference to the needs of mature willows and 

cottonwoods. The recruitment of new individuals requires near-surface levels of groundwater 

during seed germination, followed by a relatively gradual decline in depth that allows roots to 

pursue the retreating alluvial groundwater. Leenhouts et al. (2005) state that manner in which 

cottonwoods and willows become established is linked to flood flow hydrology. Both species 

are relatively short-lived (about 100 to 150 years) and have vernally adapted reproduction 

strategies. Conditions for establishment are not consistently favorable at any given location year 

after year, so cohorts of these trees establish only during occasional favorable years. The timing 

of floodflows is critical, as both species produce seeds that are viable during the relatively brief 

period when high spring flows are usually declining and exposing base, damp sediments (Fenner 

et al. 1984). A typical pattern is for fall or winter floods to scour and redeposit flood-plain 

sediments, creating potential seed beds for these plants to establish without competition from an 

existing overstory; seed beds are then moistened by elevated (flood flows). Goodding’s willow 

disperses seeds somewhat later in the season than does cottonwood (although the dispersal 

periods overlap) and, as the flood waters recede, establishes on sites that are lower and closer to 

the stream. 
317

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

The rates of flood-water recession (i.e. the descending limb of the hydrograph) and subsequent 

decline in alluvial water table elevation influence seedling survival in Fremont cottonwood, 

Goodding’s willow and other Populus and Salix species. During spring when flood waters are 

receding and seedlings are establishing on sediment bars, ground-water declines of greater than 1 

to 3 centimeters per day can cause seedling death (Segelquist et al. 1993, Mahoney and Rood, 

1998, Shafroth et al. 1998, Amlin and Rood 2002). Rood and Mahoney (1990) and Tyree et al. 

(1994) found that gradual decline of stream discharge after flooding allowed cottonwood 

seedlings’ root systems to maintain contact with the ground water and avoid cavitation (gaps in 

the water flowing within xylem). In locations where the proposed action will appreciably reduce 

groundwater elevations beneath streams, we would expect the descending limb of spring 

hydrographs to steepen (declining less gradually), as discharge-driven channel recharge would 

first need to saturate a greater volume of alluvium relative to the more well-saturated alluvium 

present in an unaffected stream. 

Sustained ground-water declines throughout the summer to depths greater than 1 or 2 meters 

below land surface (depending on soil texture, weather, and species) also can preclude 

establishment of the new cohort (Kalischuk et al. 2001, Amlin and Rood 2002). Willow 

seedlings are less tolerant of water-table decline than cottonwood seedlings (and more tolerant of 

inundation) and show greatest growth under no water-table decline (continually saturated soils; 

Horton and Clark, 2001, Amlin and Rood 2002). 

Merritt and Bateman (2012) examined Cherry Creek, a central Arizona tributary of the upper 

Salt River, and modeled changes in riparian vegetation as a result of increasing the depth of 

groundwater from the surface. The relative frequency of riparian forest to shrubland decreased 

significantly as a function of increasing depth to groundwater, ranging from 58 percent (%) at 

base groundwater level to 5% at 6.6 feet (2 meters) below base level. A simulated groundwater 

decline of 6.6 feet (2 meters) below base level resulted in a nearly complete loss of riparian 

forest and conversion of the valley bottom to shrubland. Predicted loss of riparian forest 

averaged 4% per 4 inches (.33 feet) (10 centimeters) of groundwater decline. 

We are aware of the difference in time scales between the aforementioned studies and the 

temporal progression of the modeled effects of the proposed action. Some of the referenced 

investigations were intra-annual and none were performed over the up-to-1,000-year terms of the 

modeling for the proposed action. Again, we refer to Shafroth et al. (2000), which would seem 

to indicate that riparian vegetation communities could adapt to a slow progression of 

groundwater elevation over a lengthy time period (as is often the case in the reach-specific 

sections, below), provided that maximum depths to groundwater were not exceeded. 

Gardner Canyon 

As indicated by the Gardner/Cienega Confluence data in Table A-5 in the Effects to Aquatic 

Ecosystems section, Tetra Tech’s (2010) maximum modeled effect scenario predicts that 

Gardner Canyon is anticipated to experience regional aquifer drawdowns of < 0.1 foot from the 

cessation of mining until 50 years later (or up to 0.15 foot at 50 years). At 150 years after 

mining, the effect to Gardner Canyon increases to 0.2 foot (or up to 0.35 foot) and reaches 0.5 
318

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

foot at 1,000 years. The groundwater drawdowns in the aquifer supplying Gardner Canyon are 

not likely to be solely capable of measurably reducing the extent or health of the approximately 

645 acres of hydroriparian and 933 acres of xeroriparian (Classes B and C) vegetation in 

Reaches 1 and 2 of Gardner Canyon, but will be additive to other effects, primarily drought and 

long-term climate change. 

Empire Gulch 

The proposed action will measurably affect the hydrology of Empire Gulch at the Upper Empire 

Gulch Springs site (see Upper Empire Gulch Springs data in Table A-5). Effects are modeled to 

range from 0.1 foot (or up to 0.2 foot) of groundwater drawdown upon cessation of mining to 0.2 

foot (or up to 0.5 foot) at 20 years, 0.5 (up to 1.8 foot) foot at 50 years, 2.5 feet (up to 5.0 foot) at 

150 years, and 6 feet at 1,000 years (Tetra Tech 2010). As stated in the Effects to Aquatic 

Ecosystems section, the spring-fed nature of the stream within Empire Gulch is relatively more 

vulnerable to alterations in the groundwater conditions that sustain the spring discharges. The 

appreciable groundwater drawdowns discussed above will likely reduce the resilience of groundand surface water-dependant vegetation in the near term (0 to 20 years). The appreciably 

increased depths to groundwater and diminished surface flows anticipated to occur in the 150 to 

1,000-year timeframe will have more serious, deleterious effects. 

The groundwater declines resulting from the proposed action are likely to diminish surface flows 

in Empire Gulch and cause mortality and/or a downward community transition of some portion 

of the stream’s approximately 407 acres of hydroriparian vegetation. The lost hydroriparian 

vegetation may be replaced by xeric species, resulting in an increase in the 845 acres of Class A, 

B, and C xeroriparian vegetation present in Empire Gulch. There is also the potential that some 

portions of existing xeroriparian vegetation that are partially replying on alluvial groundwater 

will suffer educed vigor. 

Lastly, the current depth to groundwater in Empire Gulch in areas maintained by spring 

discharge (but not immediately adjacent to the springs) is not known. If ongoing drought has 

already resulted in decreased groundwater elevations (as might be anticipated from reduced 

spring discharges), mortality thresholds for riparian plants could be exceeded appreciably sooner 

and/or the aerial extent of effects could be greater. 

Upper Cienega Creek 

Upper Cienega Creek in Reaches 1, 2, and 3, contains approximately 3,164 acres of 

hydroriparian vegetation. This riparian community will be affected by modeled drawdowns of 

<0.1 foot from the end of mining and at 20, and 50 years later (or up to 0.15 foot at 50 years). 

Drawdowns reach 0.25 feet (or up to 0.35 foot) and 0.5 feet at 150 and 1,000 years, respectively. 

Upper Cienega Creek’s 917 acres of xeroriparian vegetation in Classes B, C, and D may increase 

in extent as it replaces lost hydroriparian vegetation, though some effects to xeroriparian plant 

species facultatively using alluvial groundwater might also occur. 
319

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Table A-2, which appears in the Upper Cienega Creek subsection of the Effects to Aquatic 

Ecosystems section, displays a decrease in riparian evapotranspiration (ET) of 51 acre feet per 

annum (AFA) at 1,000 years. The decreased riparian ET corresponds to a loss of riparian 

vegetation, though we cannot determine if the loss would be the result of mortality, conversion to 

more xeric types, or a combination of the two. 

Barrel Canyon 

As stated in the Effects to Aquatic Ecosystems section, the proposed action will affect Barrel 

Canyon primarily by the placement of tailings in the stream channel and its watershed, which 

will reduce surface runoff by approximately 17.2 percent over the long term. The largest effects 

will occur prior to the implementation of concurrent reclamation activities. 

Barrel Canyon contains approximately 205 acres of hydroriparian and 22 acres of Class-B 

xeroriparian vegetation, though SWCA (2012) noted that the areas mapped as hydroriparian 

were more xeric and should likely be classified as xeroriparian. 

Davidson Canyon Wash 

Tetra Tech predicted groundwater drawdowns in Davidson Canyon Wash at the downstream end 

of Reach 4 (see the Davidson/Cienega Confluence data in Table A-5) of <0.1 foot from 0 to 150 

years after mining and 0.1 foot at 1,000 years (or up to 0.15 foot at 20 years, and 0.2 foot at both 

50 and 150 years). 

The Effects to Aquatic Ecosystems section discusses the effects of changed runoff patterns in 

Davidson Canyon Wash. The stream’s upper watershed will be subject to altered surface water 

runoff patterns due to the aforementioned placement of tailings and stormwater retention in 

Barrel Canyon and retention of stormwater within the mine site. SWCA (2012) extrapolated a 

4.3 percent reduction in runoff in the lower reaches of Davidson Canyon Wash. The effect of 

this small, but measurable reduction in runoff on the recruitment, retention, and succession of 

riparian communities is difficult to predict, particularly because the 4.3 percent reduction is in 

average annual yield, which cannot describe discharge-based effects during crucial, low flow 

periods. 

Lower Cienega Creek 

Lower Cienega Creek (Reaches 4 and 5 in Figure A-1) supports approximately 2,603 acres of 

hydroriparian and 1,131 acres of Class A, B, C, and D xeroriparian vegetation. Tetra Tech 

(2010) modeled groundwater drawdowns of <0.1 foot at the USGS stream gage in Reach 5 

(09484560) for all time steps from the cessation of mining to 1,000 years. Drawdowns of such 

low magnitude, absent other effects, are not anticipated to affect riparian vegetation. 

Reach 5, which we again note is downstream of the Davidson Canyon Wash confluence, is 

nevertheless anticipated to experience the full suite of the proposed action’s accumulated, 

adverse effects. While recognizing the potential for these effects, the fate of diminished surface 
320

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

flows is uncertain, as infiltration and/or riparian evapotranspirative losses vary spatially and 

temporally. The effects have nevertheless been modeled and represent the best available 

information. 

The effects to riparian vegetation in lowermost Cienega Creek include all drawdown-driven 

surface flow alterations in upstream reaches (and in Empire Gulch in particular) as well as runoff 

reductions from the placement of tailings within the upper reaches of Barrel Canyon. Pima 

County’s estimation that Davidson Canyon subflow contributes 8 to 24 percent of baseflow in 

Reach 5 of Cienega Creek and SWCA’s (2012) interpolation that the subflow reduction could be 

approximately from 0.3 to 1.0 percent makes it reasonable to anticipate at least limited effects to 

riparian vegetation in the lowermost reaches of Cienega Creek (Reach 5). We refer to Table A-3

in the Lower Cienega Creek subsection of the Effects to Aquatic Ecosystems section, wherein 

Montgomery [(2010, cited in SWCA (2012)] predicted a 221 afa decrease in riparian ET in lower 

Cienega Creek 1,000 years after mining. 

Westland (2012b) conducted an analysis of existing data pertaining to depth to groundwater and 

surface flows in a reach of lower Cienega Creek to determine the degree to which impoundment 

of surface runoff at the mine site and the modeled drawdowns might affect surface flows in 

lower Cienega Creek. The findings of Westland (2012b) are that there will be an estimated, 

immediate reduction of approximately 24 linear feet of wetted stream in lower Cienega Creek as 

a result of reduced runoff from areas impounded by the mine (and the stormwater capture 

within). After 100 years, an additional 88 feet of wetted stream, for a total of 112 feet, of lower 

Cienega Creek could be lost due to groundwater drawdown. Should regional drought conditions 

persist, these changes would be in addition to the ongoing reductions in stream flow extent 

measured by the Pima Association of Governments (2012). 

We caution that reduction in the length of wetted channel does not necessarily characterize the 

potential full extent of riparian effects. Surface flows in alluvial reaches of Cienega Creek exist 

in locations where the thalweg (deepest part) of the stream intersects the alluvial water table. A 

longitudinal contraction in surface flows would necessarily be accompanied by a more-lengthy, 

longitudinal reduction in shallow, subsurface flows, with alluvial groundwater in some areas 

potentially dropping below critical depths for emergent, shallow-rooted plants, herbaceous 

shrubs, as well as broadleaf riparian trees. 

The longitudinal contraction in surface flows would also be accompanied by a narrowing of the 

riparian strand and/or a transition to more xeric types (i.e. tamarisk, desert broom, etc.). The 

diminished lateral extent of shallow groundwater would also reduce the wetted perimeter of the 

stream. Stream top-width is a useful surrogate for wetted perimeter, and such a narrowing of a 

stream can be expected to result in vegetative recruitment encroaching closer to the centerline of 

the channel. This is problematic since the proposed action will leave flood flows in reaches 

above Davidson Canyon Wash largely unaffected. Vegetation that establishes itself in a 

narrowed low-flow channel is likely to be subject to scouring from the still-intact peak flows. 

Flood scour could be further exacerbated if vegetative communities suffer mortality sufficient to 

reduce streambank stability. 
321

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Status of the Species – Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 

A complete description of the biology of the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii 

extimus) is contained in the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan (FWS 2002); a 

summary of the information appears below. 

Description 

The southwestern willow flycatcher is a small grayish-green passerine bird (Family Tyrannidae) 

measuring approximately 5.75 inches. The song is a sneezy “fitz-bew” or a “fit-a-bew”, the call 

is a repeated “whit.” It is one of four currently recognized willow flycatcher subspecies (Phillips 

1948, Unitt 1987, Browning 1993). It is a neotropical migrant that breeds in the southwestern 

U.S. and migrates to Mexico, Central America, and possibly northern South America during the 

non-breeding season (Phillips 1948, Stiles and Skutch 1989, Peterson 1990, Ridgely and Tudor 

1994, Howell and Webb 1995). The historical breeding range of the southwestern willow 

flycatcher included southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, western Texas, southwestern 

Colorado, southern Utah, extreme southern Nevada, and extreme northwestern Mexico (Sonora 

and Baja) (Unitt 1987). 

Listing and Critical Habitat 

The southwestern willow flycatcher was listed as endangered, without critical habitat on 

February 27, 1995 (FWS 1995). Critical habitat was later designated on July 22, 1997 (FWS 

1997a). A correction notice was published in the Federal Register on August 20, 1997 to clarify 

the lateral extent of the designation (FWS 1997b). 

On May 11, 2001, the 10th circuit court of appeals set aside designated critical habitat in those 

states under the 10th circuit’s jurisdiction (New Mexico). The FWS decided to set aside critical 

habitat designated for the southwestern willow flycatcher in all other states (California and 

Arizona) until it could re-assess the economic analysis. 

On October 19, 2005, the FWS re-designated critical habitat for the southwestern willow 

flycatcher (FWS 2005). A total of 737 river miles across southern California, Arizona, New 

Mexico, southern Nevada, and southern Utah were included in the final designation. The lateral 

extent of critical habitat includes areas within the 100-year floodplain. 

On August 15, 2011, the FWS proposed a revision to the critical habitat designation, identifying 

stream segments in each of the 29 Management Units where there are recovery goals (FWS 

2011). These segments totaled 2,090 stream miles. Similar to the 2005 rule, the lateral extent of 

critical habitat includes only the riparian areas within the 100-year floodplain. About 790 stream 

miles were identified as areas we will consider for exclusion from the final designation under 

section 4(b) (2) of the ESA. 

The 2005 critical habitat designation remained in place until the final rule was published on 

January 3, 2013 (78 FR 344). The final rule designated approximately 208,973 
322

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

acres of streams and riparian areas within the 100-year floodplain or flood-prone areas along 

approximately 1,975 stream miles in California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New 

Mexico.

A final recovery plan for the southwestern willow flycatcher was signed by the FWS 

Southwestern Region Director and released to the public in March, 2003 (FWS 2002). The Plan 

describes the reasons for endangerment, current status of the flycatcher, addresses important 

recovery actions, includes detailed issue papers on management issues, and provides recovery 

goals. Recovery is based on reaching numerical and habitat related goals for each specific 

Management Unit established throughout the subspecies range and establishing long-term 

conservation plans (FWS 2002). 

Habitat 

The southwestern willow flycatcher breeds in dense riparian habitats from sea level in California 

to approximately 8,500 feet in Arizona and southwestern Colorado. Historical egg/nest 

collections and species' descriptions throughout its range describe the southwestern willow 

flycatcher's widespread use of willow (Salix spp.) for nesting (Phillips 1948, Phillips et al. 1964, 

Hubbard 1987, Unitt 1987). Currently, southwestern willow flycatchers primarily use Geyer 

willow (S. geyeriana), coyote willow (S. exigua), Goodding’s willow (S. gooddingii), boxelder 

(Acer negundo), saltcedar (Tamarix sp.), Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolio), and live oak 

(Quercus agrifolia) for nesting. Other plant species less commonly used for nesting include: 

buttonbush (Cephalanthus sp.), black twinberry (Lonicera involucrata), cottonwood (Populus

spp.), white alder (Alnus rhombifolia), blackberry (Rubus ursinus), and stinging nettle (Urtica

spp.). Based on the diversity of plant species composition and complexity of habitat structure, 

four basic habitat types can be described for the southwestern willow flycatcher: monotypic 

willow, monotypic exotic, native broadleaf dominated, and mixed native/exotic (Sogge et al. 

1997). 

The flycatcher’s habitat is dynamic and can change rapidly: nesting habitat can grow out of 

suitability; saltcedar habitat can develop from seeds to suitability in about four to five years; 

heavy runoff can remove/reduce habitat suitability in a day; or river channels, floodplain width, 

location, and vegetation density may change over time. The flycatcher’s use of habitat in 

different successional stages may also be dynamic. For example, over-mature or young habitat 

not suitable for nest placement can be occupied and used for foraging and shelter by migrating, 

breeding, dispersing, or non-territorial southwestern willow flycatchers (McLeod et al. 2005, 

Cardinal and Paxton 2005). Flycatcher habitat can quickly change and vary in suitability, 

location, use, and occupancy over time (Finch and Stoleson 2000). 

Tamarisk is an important component of the flycatcher’s nesting and foraging habitat in the 

central part of the flycatcher’s breeding range in Arizona, southern Nevada and Utah, and 

western New Mexico. In 2001 in Arizona, 323 of the 404 (80 percent) known flycatcher nests 

(in 346 territories) were built in a tamarisk tree (Smith et al. 2002). Tamarisk had been believed 

by some to be a habitat type of lesser quality for the southwestern willow flycatcher, however 

comparisons of reproductive performance (FWS 2002), prey populations (Durst 2004) and 
323

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

physiological conditions (Owen and Sogge 2002) of flycatchers breeding in native and exotic 

vegetation has revealed no difference (Sogge et al. 2005). The southwestern willow flycatcher is 

an insectivore, foraging in dense shrub and tree vegetation along rivers, streams, and other 

wetlands. 

The introduced tamarisk leaf beetle was first detected affecting tamarisk within the range of the 

southwestern willow flycatcher in 2008 along the Virgin River in St. George, Utah. Initially, 

this insect was not believed to be able to move into or survive within the southwestern United 

States in the breeding range of the flycatcher. Along this Virgin River site in 2009, 13 of 15 

flycatcher nests failed following vegetation defoliation (Paxton et al. 2010). As of 2012, the 

beetle has been found in southern Nevada/Utah and northern Arizona/New Mexico within the 

flycatcher’s breeding range. Because tamarisk is a component of about 50 percent of all known 

flycatcher territories (Durst et al. 2008), continued spread of the beetle has the potential to 

significantly alter the distribution, abundance, and quality of flycatcher nesting habitat and 

impact breeding attempts. 

Breeding biology 

Arizona Distribution and Abundance 

While numbers have significantly increased in Arizona (145 to 459 territories from 1996 to 

2007) (English et al. 2006, Durst et al. 2008), overall distribution of flycatchers throughout the 

state has not changed much. Currently, population stability in Arizona is believed to be largely 

dependent on the presence of two large populations (Roosevelt Lake and San Pedro/Gila River 

confluence). Therefore, the result of catastrophic events or losses of significant populations 

either in size or location could greatly change the status and survival of the bird. Conversely, 

expansion into new habitats or discovery of other populations would improve the known stability 

and status of the flycatcher.

Fire 

The evidence suggests that fire was not a primary disturbance factor in southwestern riparian 

areas near larger streams (FWS 2002). Yet, in recent time, fire size and frequency has increased 

on the lower Colorado, Gila, Bill Williams, and Rio Grande rivers. The increase has been 

attributed to increasing dry, fine fuels as a result of the cessation of flood flows and human 

caused ignition sources. The spread of the highly flammable plant, tamarisk, and drying of river 

areas due to river flow regulation, water diversion, lowering of groundwater tables, and other 

land practices is largely responsible for these fuels. A catastrophic fire in June of 1996, 

destroyed approximately a half mile of occupied tamarisk flycatcher nesting habitat on the San 

Pedro River in Pinal County. That fire resulted in the forced dispersal or loss of up to eight pairs 

of flycatchers (Paxton et al. 1996). Smaller fires have occurred along the upper most portion of 

the San Pedro River closer to the Mexico Border and another large fire occurred on the lower 

San Pedro River at the Nature Conservancy’s San Pedro Preserve between Winkelman and 

Dudleyville in 2004. Recreationists cause over 95 percent of the fires on the lower Colorado 

River (FWS 2002). 
324

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Mortality and Survivorship 

There are no extensive records for the actual causes of adult southwestern willow flycatcher 

mortality. Incidents associated with nest failures, human disturbance, and nestlings are typically 

the most often recorded due to the static location of nestlings, eggs, and nests. As a result, 

nestling predation and brood parasitism are the most commonly recorded causes of southwestern 

willow flycatcher mortality. Also, human destruction of nesting habitat through bulldozing, 

groundwater pumping, and aerial defoliants has been recorded in Arizona (T. McCarthey, 

AGFD, pers. comm.). Human collision with nests and spilling the eggs or young onto the 

ground have been documented near high use recreational areas (FWS 2002). A southwestern 

willow flycatcher from the Greer Town site along the Little Colorado River in eastern Arizona, 

was found dead after being hit by a vehicle along SR 373. This route is adjacent to the breeding 

site (T. McCarthey, AGFD, pers. comm.). 

Past Consultations 

Since listing in 1995, approximately 210 Federal agency actions have undergone (or are 

currently under) formal section 7 consultation throughout the flycatcher’s range. This list of 

consultations can be found in the administrative record for this consultation. Since flycatcher 

critical habitat was finalized in 2005, at least 33 formal opinions have been completed in Arizona 

(within and outside designated critical habitat). While many opinions were issued for the 

previous critical habitat designation, the stream reaches and constituent elements have changed. 

Activities continue to adversely affect the distribution and extent of all stages of flycatcher 

habitat throughout its range (development, urbanization, grazing, recreation, native and nonnative habitat removal, dam operations, river crossings, ground and surface water extraction, 

etc.). Introduced tamarisk eating leaf beetles were not anticipated to persist within the range of 

the southwestern willow flycatcher. However, they were detected within the breeding habitat 

(and designated critical habitat) of the flycatcher in 2008 along the Virgin River near the Town 

of St. George, Utah. In 2009, beetles were also known to have been detected defoliating habitat 

within the range of flycatcher habitat in southern Nevada, and along the Colorado River in the 

Grand Canyon and near Shiprock in Arizona. Stochastic events also continue to change the 

distribution, quality, and extent of flycatcher habitat. 

Conservation measures associated with some consultations and Habitat Conservation Plans have 

helped to acquire lands specifically for flycatchers on the San Pedro, Verde, and Gila rivers in 

Arizona and the Kern River in California. Additionally, along the lower Colorado River, the 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is currently attempting to establish riparian vegetation to expand 

and improve the distribution and abundance of nesting flycatchers. A variety of Tribal 

Management Plans in California, Arizona, and New Mexico have been established to guide 

conservation of the flycatchers. Additionally, during the development of the critical habitat rule, 

management plans were developed for some private lands along the Owens River in California 

and Gila River in New Mexico. These are a portion of the conservation actions that have been 

established across the subspecies’ range. 
325

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Environmental Baseline – Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 

The southwestern willow flycatcher is an obligate riparian bird and thus, the status of riparian 

ecosystems within the action area is crucial to the species’ Environmental Baseline. The riparian 

vegetative communities present in the action area are described in Table R-1 within the Effects 

to Riparian Ecosystems section. Table SWF-1, below, displays the subset of sites from Table R1 that constitute the southwestern willow flycatcher habitat (and critical habitat) affected by the 

proposed action. We again note that the determination to employ the Pima County riparian 

mapping may overestimate the exact acreage of the various classes of riparian vegetation. 

Table SWF-1. Riparian affected environment within Southwestern Willow Flycatcher habitat and critical habitat adapted from SWCA (2012) 

and based on Pima County (2012) mapping

Reach Name Acres Pima County Class Dominant Riparian Plants

Cienega Creek 1 695.13 Hydroriparian Cottonwood and Goodding’s willow**

Cienega Creek 1 364.69 Xeroriparian B Large mesquites and scrub mesquites with scattered cottonwoods**

Cienega Creek 2 2,086.96 Hydroriparian Mature cottonwood and Goodding’s willow**

Cienega Creek 2 323.98 Xeroriparian B Acacia, desert willow, ironwood, paloverde, mesquite, soapberry*

Cienega Creek 2 65.58 Xeroriparian C Acacia, desert willow, ironwood, paloverde, mesquite, soapberry*

Cienega Creek 3 382.27 Hydroriparian Mature cottonwood and Goodding’s willow with young velvet ash**

Cienega Creek 3 35.88 Xeroriparian B Mesquite and netleaf hackberry**

Cienega Creek 3 126.96 Xeroriparian C Mesquite with desert broom and burrobrush**

Cienega Creek 3 0.78 Xeroriparian D Acacia, desert willow, ironwood paloverde, mesquite, soapberry*

Empire Gulch 86.00 Xeroriparian A Acacia, desert willow, ironwood, paloverde, mesquite, soapberry*

Empire Gulch 631.39 Xeroriparian B Acacia, desert willow, ironwood, paloverde, mesquite, soapberry*

Empire Gulch 127.90 Xeroriparian C Acacia, desert willow, ironwood, paloverde, mesquite, soapberry*

Empire Gulch 407.46 Hydroriparian Large cottonwood willow gallery**

Total Hydroriparian in upper Cienega Creek and Empire Gulch 3571.82

Total Xeroriparian A in upper Cienega Creek and Empire Gulch 86

Total Xeroriparian B in upper Cienega Creek and Empire Gulch 1355.94

Total Xeroriparian C in upper Cienega Creek and Empire Gulch 320.44

Total Xeroriparian D in upper Cienega Creek and Empire Gulch 0.78

* From generic Pima County habitat type descriptions (CITE PIMA COUNTY RIPARIAN APPENDIX).

** From actual field observations (WestLand Resources Inc. 2010d, 2012a, 2012b).

Status of the Flycatcher in the Action Area 

The action area includes the streams and associated riparian communities affected by the 

proposed action, as detailed within the Effects to Aquatic Ecosystems and Effects to Riparian 

Ecosystem section, above. Flycatcher surveys and detections have been limited within the action 

area. AGFD (Ellis et al. 2008) reported the results of flycatcher presence and absence surveys 

occurring between 1993 and 2006 along five reaches of Cienega Creek (in order from upstream 

to downstream, are Empire/ Cienega–Cienega Creek, Cienega Creek near Cross Hill, Cienega 

Narrows, Cienega Creek–Narrows to Coldwater, and Cienega Creek). Most recently, in 2011 the 

BLM (Radke 2011) conducted surveys along lower Empire Gulch and upper Cienega Creek and 

from 2010 to 2012, Pima County (Rodden 2010, 2011,2012) conducted flycatcher surveys along 

a mile portion of lower Cienega Creek. 

Between 1993 and 2006, the reach of Cienega Creek in which territorial flycatchers were 

documented was the uppermost portion (Cienega Creek), where a pair and nest were located in 
326

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

2001 (within the critical habitat segment). Two migrant flycatchers were documented in the 

same reach of Cienega Creek—one in 1999 and one in 2003. A willow flycatcher of an 

unknown subspecies (Empidonax traillii ssp.) was documented at the Empire Gulch Monitoring 

Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) station in July 2006 (Institute for Bird Populations 

2006). Please note that the subsequent use of the term “willow flycatcher” refers to birds for 

which the subspecies cannot be definitively determined; these are individuals that are during 

migration. The term “flycatcher” is used throughout this document when a bird has been 

identified as a southwestern willow flycatcher based on observation of territorial behavior and 

breeding activity in the subspecies’ known range.

A single flycatcher territory was detected along Cienega Creek in 2001 (Smith et al. 2002). An 

individual flycatcher was documented on Cienega Creek during formal surveys in August 2003 

(Keith Hughes, BLM files, as cited in BLM 2013). 

A flycatcher (or flycatchers) were documented with the “fitz-bew” call on a territory just west of 

net 10 of the Empire Gulch Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) station on 

June 8 and 17, 2011; the detection was listed as “probable breeder-song” for these dates (BLM 

2012, BLM 2013, Paxton 2012). An after-hatch-year flycatcher was caught in net 10 on June 17, 

2011, and a hatch-year bird was caught on August 6, 2011, in net 7 of the same MAPS station 

(M. Radke, pers. obs., as cited in BLM 2013). Flycatchers were also listed as “likely breeder” 

for the 2011 year status for the Empire Gulch MAPS station (M. Radke, pers. obs., as cited in 

BLM 2013). 

From 2010 to 2012, an approximately 1-mile length of the so-called Claypit Reach of Cienega 

Creek was surveyed by Pima County in order to evaluate a potential Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife project that would remove tamarisk. No flycatchers were detected the three seasons that 

this portion of lower Cienega Creek was surveyed (Rodden 2010, 2011, 2012). 

Status of Flycatcher Critical Habitat in the Action Area 

We revised the flycatcher critical habitat designation in 2013, including reaches of Cienega 

Creek and Empire Gulch within the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area in Pima County. 

Specifically, we designated a 17.9-km (11.1-mi) segment of Cienega Creek and two segments of 

Empire Gulch; an isolated 0.4-km (0.3-mi) upper segment of Empire Gulch and a second 1.3-km 

(0.8-mi) lower segment of Empire Gulch that connects to Cienega Creek. The Cienega Creek 

portion of the critical habitat is located within Reaches 1, 2, and 3 (see Figure A-1). Empire 

Gulch was not subdivided for groundwater modeling purposes, so groundwater decline-driven 

effects to the two portions of critical habitat in the stream cannot be described separately. 

Cienega Creek was identified in the Recovery Plan as an area with substantial recovery value 

(FWS 2002, p. 91), while the adjacent Empire Gulch was not identified in the Plan, but was only 
327

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

recently reported as likely having a flycatcher territory. These stream segments fall within the 

Santa Cruz Management Unit and were designated (along with a portion of the Santa Cruz 

River) to follow and meet the geographic and territory and habitat-related goals described in the 

Plan (FWS 2002). The Santa Cruz Management Unit is, in turn, a component of the Gila 

Recovery Unit. These areas, as are all critical habitat segments, are anticipated to provide 

flycatcher habitat for metapopulation stability, gene connectivity through this portion of the 

flycatcher’s range, protection against catastrophic population loss, and population growth and 

colonization potential. We also designated critical habitat to support the feeding and sheltering 

needs of migratory and dispersing flycatchers. Overall, these river segments and associated 

flycatcher habitat are anticipated to support the strategy, rationale, and science of flycatcher 

conservation. 

The areas designated as flycatcher critical habitat are designed to provide sufficient riparian 

habitat for breeding, non-breeding, territorial, dispersing, and migrating flycatchers in order to 

reach the geographic distribution, abundance, and habitat-related recovery goals described in the 

Recovery Plan (FWS 2002, pp. 77–85). 

In general, the physical or biological features (PBF) of critical habitat for nesting flycatchers are 

found in the riparian areas within the 100-year floodplain or flood-prone area. Flycatchers use 

riparian habitat for feeding, sheltering, and cover while breeding, migrating, and dispersing. It is 

important to recognize that flycatcher habitat is ephemeral in its presence, and its distribution is 

dynamic in nature because riparian vegetation is prone to periodic disturbance (such as flooding) 

(FWS 2002, p. 17). Even with the dynamic shifts in habitat conditions, one or more of the 

primary constituent elements (elements of the physical and biological factors) described below 

are found throughout each of the units that we designated as critical habitat. 

Flycatcher habitat may become unsuitable for breeding through maturation or disturbance of the 

riparian vegetation, but it may remain suitable for use during migration or for foraging. This 

situation may be only temporary, and vegetation may cycle back into suitability as breeding 

habitat (FWS 2002, p. 17). Therefore, it is not practical to assume that any given breeding 

habitat area will remain suitable over the long term or persist in the same location (FWS 2002, p. 

17). Thus, flycatcher habitat that is not currently suitable for nesting at a specific time, but is 

useful for foraging and migration, can still be important for flycatcher conservation. Feeding 

sites and migration stopover areas are important components for the flycatcher’s survival, 

productivity, and health, and they can also be areas where new breeding habitat develops as 

nesting sites are lost or degraded (FWS 2002, p. 42). These successional cycles of habitat 

change are important for long-term persistence of flycatcher habitat. 

Based on our current knowledge of the life history and ecology of the flycatcher and the 

relationship of its life-history functions to its habitat, it is important to recognize the 

interconnected nature of the physical or biological features that provide the primary constituent 

elements of critical habitat. Specifically, we consider the relationships between river function, 

hydrology, floodplains, aquifers, and plant growth, which form the environment essential to 

flycatcher conservation. 
328

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

The hydrologic regime (stream flow pattern) and supply of (and interaction between) surface and 

subsurface water is a driving factor in the long-term maintenance, growth, recycling, and 

regeneration of flycatcher habitat (FWS 2002, p. 16). As streams reach the lowlands, their 

gradients typically flatten and surrounding terrain opens into broader floodplains (FWS 2002, p. 

32). In these geographic settings, the stream-flow patterns (frequency, magnitude, duration, and 

timing) will provide the necessary stream-channel conditions (wide configuration, high sediment 

deposition, periodic inundation, recharged aquifers, lateral channel movement, and elevated 

groundwater tables throughout the floodplain) that result in the development of flycatcher habitat 

(Poff et al. 1997, pp. 770–772; FWS 2002, p. 16). Allowing the river to flow over the width of 

the floodplain, when overbank flooding occurs, is integral to allow deposition of fine moist soils, 

water, nutrients, and seeds that provide the essential material for plant germination and growth. 

An abundance and distribution of fine sediments extending farther laterally across the floodplain 

and deeper underneath the surface retains much more subsurface water, which in turn supplies 

water for the development of the vegetation that provides flycatcher habitat and micro-habitat 

conditions (FWS 2002, p. 16). The interconnected interaction between groundwater and surface 

water contributes to the quality of riparian vegetation community (structure and plant species) 

and will influence the germination, density, vigor, composition, and the ability of vegetation to 

regenerate and maintain itself (Arizona Department of Water Resources 1994, pp. 31–32). 

Considering these issues and other information regarding the biology and ecology of the species, 

we have determined that the flycatcher requires the essential physical or biological features 

(PBF) described below.

Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior 

Streams of lower gradient and more open valleys with a wide or broad floodplain are an essential 

physical or biological feature of flycatcher habitat. In some instances, streams in relatively 

steep, confined areas can also support flycatcher breeding habitat (FWS 2002, p. D-13). These 

areas support the abundance of riparian vegetation used for flycatcher nesting, foraging, 

dispersal, and migration. 

Streams of lower gradient and more open valleys with a wide and broad floodplain are the 

geological settings that are known to support flycatcher breeding habitat from near sea level to 

about 2,600 m (8,500 ft) in elevation in southern California, southern Nevada, southern Utah, 

southern Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico (FWS 2002, p. 7). Sometimes, the low-gradient 

wider floodplain exists only at the habitat patch itself within a stream that is otherwise steeper in 

gradient (FWS 2002, p. D-12). Flycatchers can occupy and breed in very small, isolated habitat 

patches and may occur in fairly high densities within those small patches. 

 

Many willow flycatchers are found along streams using riparian habitat during migration (Yong 

and Finch 1997, p. 253; FWS 2002, p. E-3). Migration stopover areas can be similar to 

breeding habitat or riparian habitats with less vegetation density and abundance compared to 

areas for nest placement (the vegetation structure is too short or sparse or the patch is too small) 

(FWS 2002, p. E-3). Such migration stopover areas, even though not used for breeding, are 

critically important resources affecting productivity and survival (FWS 2002, p. E-3). The 
329

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

variety of riparian habitat occupied by migrant flycatchers ranges from small patches with 

shorter and sparser vegetation to larger more complex breeding habitats. 

Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or Physiological Requirements

Food 

The presence of a wide range of invertebrate prey, including flying and ground- and vegetationdwelling species of terrestrial and aquatic origins is an essential physical or biological feature of 

flycatcher habitat. 

 

The flycatcher is somewhat of an insect generalist (FWS 2002, p. 26), taking a wide range of 

invertebrate prey including flying, and ground- and vegetation-dwelling species of terrestrial and 

aquatic origins (Drost et al. 2003, pp. 96–102). From an analysis of the flycatcher diet along the 

South Fork of the Kern River, California (Drost et al. 2003, p. 98), flycatchers consumed a 

variety of prey from 12 different insect groups. Flycatchers have been identified targeting 

seasonal hatchings of aquatic insects along the Salt River arm of Roosevelt Lake, Arizona 

(Paxton et al. 2007, p. 75).

Flycatcher food availability may be largely influenced by the density and species of vegetation, 

proximity to and presence of water, saturated soil levels, and microclimate features such as 

temperature and humidity (FWS 2002, pp. 18, D-12). Flycatchers forage within and above the 

tree canopy, along the patch edge, in openings within the territory, over water, and from tall trees 

as well as herbaceous ground cover (Bent 1960, pp. 209–210; McCabe 1991, p. 124). 

Flycatchers employ a “sit and wait” foraging tactic, with foraging bouts interspersed with longer 

periods of perching (Prescott and Middleton 1988, p. 25). 

Water 

Flowing streams with a wide range of stream flow conditions that support expansive riparian 

vegetation is an essential physical feature of flycatcher habitat. The most common stream flow 

conditions are largely perennial (persistent) stream flow with a natural hydrologic regime 

(frequency, magnitude, duration, and timing). However, in the Southwest, hydrological 

conditions can vary, causing some flows to be intermittent, but the floodplain can retain surface 

moisture conditions favorable to expansive and flourishing riparian vegetation. These 

appropriate conditions can be supported by managed water sources and hydrological cycles that 

mimic key components of the natural hydrologic cycle. Flycatcher nesting habitat is largely 

associated with perennial (persistent) stream flow that can support the expanse of vegetation 

characteristics needed by breeding flycatchers, but there are exceptions. Flycatcher nesting 

habitat can persist on intermittent streams that retain local conditions favorable to riparian 

vegetation (FWS 2002, p. D-12). 

In the Southwest, hydrological conditions at a flycatcher breeding site can vary remarkably 

within a season and between years (FWS 2002, p. D-12). At some locations, particularly during 

drier years, water or saturated soil is only present early in the breeding season (May and part of 
330

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

June) (FWS 2002, p. D-12). At other sites, vegetation may be immersed in standing water 

during a wet year but be hundreds of meters from surface water in dry years (FWS 2002, p. D12). Where a river channel has changed naturally, there may be a total absence of water or 

visibly saturated soil for several years. In such cases, the riparian vegetation and any flycatchers 

breeding within it may persist for several years (FWS 2002, p. D-12). 

Sites for Germination or Seed Dispersal 

Elevated subsurface groundwater tables and appropriate floodplain fine sediments are essential 

physical or biological features of flycatcher habitat. These features provide water and seedbeds 

for the germination, growth, and maintenance of expansive growth of riparian vegetation needed 

by the flycatcher. 

Subsurface hydrologic conditions may in some places (particularly at the more arid locations of 

the Southwest) be equally important to surface water conditions in determining riparian 

vegetation patterns (Lichivar and Wakely 2004, p. 92). Where groundwater levels are elevated 

to the point that riparian forest plants can directly access those waters, it can be an area for 

breeding, non-breeding (unpaired), territorial, dispersing, foraging, and migrating flycatchers. 

Elevated groundwater helps create moist soil conditions believed to be important for nesting 

conditions and prey populations (FWS 2002, pp. 11, 18), as further discussed below. 

Depth to groundwater plays an important part in the distribution of riparian vegetation (Arizona 

Department of Water Resources 1994, p. 31) and, consequently, flycatcher habitat. The greater 

the depth to groundwater below the land surface, the less abundant the riparian vegetation 

(Arizona Department of Water Resources 1994, p. 31). Localized, perched aquifers (a saturated 

area that sits above the main water table) can and do support some riparian habitat, but these 

systems are not extensive (Arizona Department of Water Resources 1994, p. 31). 

The abundance and distribution of fine sediment deposited on floodplains is critical for the 

development, abundance, distribution, maintenance, and germination of the plants that grow into 

flycatcher habitat (FWS 2002, p. 16). Fine sediments provide seed beds to facilitate the growth 

of riparian vegetation for flycatcher habitat. In almost all cases, moist or saturated soil is present 

at or near breeding sites during wet and non-drought years (FWS 2002, p. 11). The saturated 

soil and adjacent surface water may be present early in the breeding season, but only damp soil is 

present by late June or early July (FWS 2002, p. D-3). Microclimate features (temperature and 

humidity) facilitated by moist or saturated soil, are believed to play an important role where 

flycatchers are detected and nest, their breeding success, and availability and abundance of food 

resources (FWS 2002, pp. 18, D-12). 

Cover or Shelter 

Riparian tree and shrub species that provide cover and shelter for nesting, breeding, foraging, 

dispersing, and migrating flycatchers are essential physical or biological features of flycatcher 

habitat. 
331

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Riparian vegetation provides the flycatcher cover and shelter while migrating and nesting. 

Placing nests in dense vegetation provides cover and shelter from predators or nest parasites that 

would seek out flycatcher adults, nestlings, or eggs. Similarly, using riparian vegetation for 

cover and shelter during migration provides food-rich stopover areas, a place to rest, and shelter 

or cover along migratory flights (FWS 2002, pp. D-14, F-16). Riparian vegetation used by 

migrating flycatchers can sometimes be less dense and abundant than areas used for nesting 

(FWS 2002, p. D-19). However, migration stopover areas, even though not used for breeding, 

may be critically important resources affecting local and regional flycatcher productivity and 

survival (FWS 2002, p. D-19). 

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of Offspring 

Reproduction and Rearing of Offspring 

A variety of riparian tree and shrub species is an essential physical or biological feature of 

flycatcher habitat. Typically, dense, expansive riparian forests provide habitat to place nests. 

Riparian vegetation with these characteristics, with a mosaic of open spaces, typically surrounds 

locations to place nests or along river segments and provides vegetation for foraging, perching, 

dispersal, and migration, and habitat that can develop into nesting areas through time. 

Riparian habitat characteristics such as dominant plant species, size and shape of habitat patches, 

tree canopy structure, vegetation height, and vegetation density are important parameters of 

flycatcher breeding habitat, although they may vary widely at different sites (FWS 2002, p. D1). 

Flycatchers nest in thickets of trees and shrubs ranging in height from 2 m to 30 m (6 to 98 ft) 

(FWS 2002, p. D-3). Nest sites typically have dense foliage at least from the ground level up to 

approximately 4 m (13 ft) above ground, although dense foliage may exist only at the shrub 

level, or as a low, dense tree canopy (FWS 2002, p. D-3). Regardless of the plant species’ 

composition or height, breeding sites usually consist of dense vegetation in the patch interior, or 

an aggregate of dense patches interspersed with openings creating a mosaic that is not uniformly 

dense (FWS 2002, p. 11). 

Canopy density (the amount of cover provided by tree and shrub branches measured from the 

ground) at various nest sites ranged from 50 to 100 percent (FWS 2002, p. D-3). Flycatcher 

breeding habitat can be generally organized into three broad habitat types—those dominated by 

native vegetation (typically willow), by exotic (nonnative) vegetation (typically salt cedar), and 

those with mixed native and those dominated by exotic plants (typically salt cedar and willow). 

These broad habitat descriptors reflect the fact that flycatchers inhabit riparian habitats 

dominated by both native and nonnative plant species. 

Flycatchers have been recorded nesting in patches as small as 0.1 ha (0.25 ac) along the Rio 

Grande, and as large as 70 ha (175 ac) in the upper Gila River, New Mexico (FWS 2002, p. 17). 

The mean reported size of flycatcher breeding patches was 8.6 ha (21.2 ac), with the majority of 

sites toward the smaller end, as evidenced by a median patch size of 1.8 ha (4.4 ac) (FWS 2002, 

p. 17). 
332

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

With only some exceptions, flycatchers are generally not found nesting in confined floodplains 

(typically those bound within a narrow canyon) (Hatten and Paradzick 2003, p. 780) or where 

only a single narrow strip of riparian vegetation less than approximately 10 m (33 ft) wide 

develops (FWS 2002, p. D-11). 

While riparian vegetation too mature, too immature, or of lesser quality in abundance and 

breadth may not be used for nesting, it can be used by breeding flycatchers for foraging 

(especially if it extends out from larger patches) or during migration for foraging, cover, and 

shelter (Sogge and Tibbitts 1994, p. 16; Sogge and Marshall 2000, p. 53). 

Primary Constituent Elements for Flycatcher 

Primary constituent elements are those specific elements of the physical or biological features 

that provide for a species’ life-history processes and are essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological features and habitat characteristics 

required to sustain the species’ life-history processes, we determined that the primary constituent 

elements specific to the flycatcher are: 

(1) Primary Constituent Element 1— Riparian vegetation. Riparian habitat along a dynamic 

river or lakeside, in a natural or manmade successional environment (for nesting, foraging, 

migration, dispersal, and shelter) that is comprised of trees and shrubs (that can include 

Goodding’s willow, coyote willow, Geyer’s willow, arroyo willow, red willow, yewleaf willow, 

pacific willow, boxelder, tamarisk, Russian olive, buttonbush, cottonwood, stinging nettle, alder, 

velvet ash, poison hemlock, blackberry, seep willow, oak, rose, sycamore, false indigo, Pacific 

poison ivy, grape, Virginia creeper, Siberian elm, and walnut) and some combination of: 

(a) Dense riparian vegetation with thickets of trees and shrubs that can range in height 

from about 2 to 30 m (about 6 to 98 ft). Lower-stature thickets (2 to 4 m or 6 to 13 ft tall) 

are found at higher elevation riparian forests and tall-stature thickets are found at middleand lower-elevation riparian forests; 

(b) Areas of dense riparian foliage at least from the ground level up to approximately 4 m 

(13 ft) above ground or dense foliage only at the shrub or tree level as a low, dense 

canopy; 

(c) Sites for nesting that contain a dense (about 50 percent to 100 percent) tree or shrub 

(or both) canopy (the amount of cover provided by tree and shrub branches measured 

from the ground); 

(d) Dense patches of riparian forests that are interspersed with small openings of open 

water or marsh or areas with shorter and sparser vegetation that creates a variety of 

habitat that is not uniformly dense. Patch size may be as small as 0.1 ha (0.25 ac) or as 

large as 70 ha (175 ac). 

(2) Primary Constituent Element 2— Insect prey populations. A variety of insect prey 

populations found within or adjacent to riparian floodplains or moist environments, which can 
333

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

include: flying ants, wasps, and bees (Hymenoptera); dragonflies (Odonata); flies (Diptera); true 

bugs (Hemiptera); beetles (Coleoptera); butterflies, moths, and caterpillars (Lepidoptera); and 

spittlebugs (Homoptera). 

Effects to Southwestern Willow Flycatchers 

The section in this BO entitled Effects to Aquatic Ecosystems describes the hydrologic basis for 

effects to streams. The subsequent analysis of effects to riparian vegetation appears in the 

Effects to Riparian Ecosystems section. These prior analyses are incorporated herein via 

reference. 

Direct Effects to Southwestern Willow Flycatchers 

There are no known flycatcher territories or areas anticipated to have or to develop flycatcher 

breeding habitat within the proposed footprint of the Rosemont Mine; the project area is 

predominately uplands and directly affected streams (i.e. Barrel Canyon) are ephemeral and 

lacking in suitable hydroriparian vegetation. As a result, we do not anticipate that any breeding 

flycatchers will be directly affected by the construction or operation of the mine. 

Migratory flycatchers have been detected along nearby Cienega Creek and Empire Gulch and are 

known to occur in a wider variety of habitat types and locations than are territorial, breeding 

individuals. The Rosemont Mine site is situated between the Cienega Creek watershed and, to 

the south, the Sonoita Creek watershed. Given that flycatchers are a neo-tropical migrant and 

migrate between North American breeding locales and wintering sites in subtropical and tropical 

latitudes, it is probable that migratory or dispersing flycatchers will intermittently occur in the 

area of Rosemont Mine during construction or its operation. Because of the length of time the 

mine is expected to operate, it is reasonable to anticipate that migratory or dispersing flycatchers 

will transit the mine site. The mine site (in its pre-, during- and post-operation states) lacks the 

stopover habitat known to be preferred by migratory or dispersing flycatchers, so it is unlikely 

that the birds would be harmed or harassed to a greater degree than they would be when crossing 

other, unsuitable habitats. 

Indirect Effects to Southwestern Willow Flycatchers 

The Effects to Aquatic Ecosystems section discusses the proposed action’s effect to regional 

groundwater and the volume and linear extent of surface flows in area streams. The relationship 

between flood flow hydrology, depth to groundwater, and the recruitment, maturation, and 

retention of the riparian forests in which flycatchers occur was analyzed in the section entitled 

Effects to Riparian Ecosystems. These prior narratives are incorporated herein via reference. 

The drawdown of groundwater can negatively influence the ability for riparian plants to 

germinate, grow, and persist (Stromberg et al. 1996, Scott et al. 1999, Horton et al. 2001, and 

Merritt and Bateman 2012) (see Effects to Riparian Ecosystems section). Small reductions in 

stream flow or ground water levels can cause plants to undergo physiological stress and lose 

productivity, with possible adverse implications for southwestern willow flycatchers (FWS 
334

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

2002). Even short-term loss of surface flows may reduce bio-productivity and habitat quality by 

stressing those insects with aquatic larval forms, a portion of the southwestern willow 

flycatcher’s food base (FWS 2002). Nesting flycatchers do not rely on just the existence of 

riparian plants, but the persistence of this vegetation in abundant and dense quantities, requiring 

groundwater near the surface that creates conditions for abundant plant germination, growth, and 

persistence. 

As discussed in the Effects to Aquatic Ecosystems section, the proposed action will appreciably, 

adversely affect the subsurface and, eventually, the surface hydrology of Empire Gulch at the 

Upper Empire Gulch Springs site (see Upper Empire Gulch Springs data in Table A-5). Tetra 

Tech (2010) modeled the effects at this site to range from 0.1 foot (or up to 0.2 foot) of 

groundwater drawdown upon cessation of mining to 0.2 foot (or up to 0.5 foot) at 20 years, 0.5 

(up to 1.8 foot) foot at 50 years, 2.5 feet (up to 5.0 foot) at 150 years, and 6 feet at 1,000 years. 

The modeled groundwater drawdowns at upper Cienega Creek (Reaches 1, 2, and 3) are of lesser 

magnitude than in Empire Gulch. The USGS Cienega Creek stream gage (0948550) is situated 

near the narrows in the upstream portion of Reach 3 (see Figure A-1). Tetra Tech (2010) 

modeled drawdowns of <0.1 foot from the end of mining and at 20, and 50 years later (or up to 

0.15 foot at 50 years). Drawdowns reach 0.25 feet (or up to 0.35 foot) and 0.5 feet at 150 and 

1,000 years, respectively. 

We caution that the distance of these areas from the mine site, the present lack of definitive 

information regarding the regional aquifer, and the precision (or lack thereof) of the models used, 

mean there is no reasonable certainty regarding the exact magnitude of the drawdowns or of the 

exact manner in which groundwater declines will affect riparian ecosystems in either the near or 

long terms. Groundwater models are more useful in determining the magnitude of trends rather 

than absolute groundwater elevations. Regardless, the combined result of the effects to regional 

groundwater, changes in the baseflow hydrology of streams, decreases in stream length, and 

reduced riparian ET is a likely decrease in the quality of the flycatcher’s Environmental Baseline 

along Empire Gulch and upper Cienega Creek. 

Moreover, we have highlighted the aforementioned trends in increasing groundwater drawdown 

specifically because Merritt and Bateman (2012), modeling hydrology and riparian vegetation 

relationships on Cherry Creek in Central Arizona, found that a 0.33-foot drop in groundwater 

translated into a 4% loss of riparian forest in that location. 

Brand et al. (2010) examined the upper San Pedro River and found that canopy nesting and 

insectivorous birds reached their highest densities and levels of nesting success in cottonwood 

stands along intermittent and perennial reaches. While southwestern willow flycatchers are 

insectivorous, the species is rare on the upper San Pedro River and was not specifically 

investigated. 

Brand et al. (2011) conducted analyses intended to determine changes in riparian condition class 

as described in Leenhouts et al. (2005) under varying groundwater scenarios. Scenarios 

involving groundwater depletion were found to result in reduced abundance of 
335

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

cottonwood/willow vegetation and increased abundance of less phraetophytic species such as 

tamarisk. While southwestern willow flycatchers are known to occur in high densities in salt 

tamarisk in the southwestern U.S., the sites are generally associated with perennial river reaches 

maintained by releases from dams. We also note that Brand et al. (2010, 2011) found that 

densities of brown-headed cowbirds - a nest parasite of the southwestern willow flycatcher - 

increased in abundance under decreasing groundwater levels, increasing flow intermittency, and 

increasing density of tamarisk. 

The streams studied by these investigators differ from Cienega Creek in myriad ways, but the 

findings all document that depletions of groundwater are likely to result in reductions in the 

quality and quantity of habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher. 

Approximately 3,572 acres of hydroriparian habitat were mapped within Empire Gulch and 

Reaches 1, 2, and 3 of Cienega Creek by Pima County; some or all of this acreage will be 

affected by the proposed action (see Table C-1). It is likely that the single 2001 Cienega Creek 

flycatcher territory and the presumed 2011 Empire Gulch territory were situated within areas 

mapped as hydroriparian habitat. The anticipated effects to these hydroriparian sites may reduce 

their suitability to serve as nesting substrates in the future. Conversely, the erratic occurrence of 

southwestern willow flycatchers in these sites means that we cannot be reasonably certain that 

birds will be incidentally taken if and when the anticipated effects occur. 

It is likely that some fraction of the approximately 1,763 acres of Class A though D xeroriparian 

habitat mapped by Pima County in Empire Gulch and Reaches 1, 2, and 3 of Cienega Creek are 

important for flycatchers, providing either: (1) marginal nesting substrate (especially where 

cottonwoods are interspersed within a mesquite bosque) or foraging and dispersal habitat; or (2) 

a buffer between more hydric sites and the adjacent, xeric uplands, which decreases the 

edge/interior ratio of a given hydroriparian patch. Again, the sporadic use of Empire Gulch and 

upper Cienega Creek by flycatchers for breeding does not support a reasonable certainty that 

birds will be incidentally taken. Moreover, xeroriparian vegetation may increase in extent if and 

as hydroriparian communities diminish. 

Effect to Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Critical Habitat 

The analyses contained in the Effects to Aquatic Ecosystems and Effects to Riparian Ecosystems 

sections as well as the preceding analysis of adverse effects to the flycatcher inform the analysis 

of the effects to critical habitat, and are incorporated herein by reference. 

To summarize the prior analyses, the proposed action will adversely affect critical habitat via 

small, future declines in groundwater elevation which, in turn, will decrease the wetted length of 

stream, and reduce the vigor and extent of riparian vegetation. These effects would be in 

addition to relatively larger effects of natural variation. Alternately, if natural conditions recover 

(i.e. drought ceases), the effects of the proposed action would slightly reduce the magnitude of 

the improvement. The former scenario, which is more likely given climate change, represents 

effects to the PCEs of critical habitat: (1) riparian vegetation; and (2) insect prey population. 
336

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Within Pima and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona, we designated flycatcher critical habitat along 

Cienega Creek, Empire Gulch, and the Santa Cruz River; only the former two sites are within the 

action area. The Cienega Creek designation includes a 17.9-km (11.1-mi) segment of Cienega 

Creek above the Narrows within the Las Cienega NCA. There are two segments of critical 

habitat in Empire Gulch; an isolated 0.4-km (0.3-mi) upper segment of Empire Gulch and a 

second 1.3-km (0.8-mi) lower segment of Empire Gulch that connects to Cienega Creek. The 

“Gardner/Cienega Confluence”, “Upper Empire Gulch Springs”, and “Cienega near Stream Gage 

09484550” groundwater drawdown modeling points in Table SWF-2 and the Upper Cienega and 

the Narrows impact summaries in Table SWF-3 are informative. 

As stated in prior analyses, the effects to riparian and aquatic ecosystems are appreciable and, to 

the extent that the available models permit, have been quantified (see Tables A-2, A-3, A-5, and 

SWF-1). Table SWF-2, below, is an excerpt from Table A-5, and includes the 20 to 1,000-year 

modeled groundwater drawdowns for Empire Gulch and Cienega Creek within critical habitat. 

The data for the time of mine closure (0 years) are omitted because modeled drawdowns are 0.1 

feet or less. Table SWF-2 shows that from the cessation of mining to 150 years, many 

groundwater drawdowns are <0.1 foot, though Tetra Tech (2010) consistently predicts larger 

drawdowns than either Montgomery (2010) or Myers (2010). The most extreme effects are at 

the 1,000-year timeframe, where Tetra Tech (2010) has modeled a 6-foot drawdown at Upper 

Empire Gulch Springs. Our prior analyses have characterized this relatively large drawdown as 

having a limited effect to individual southwestern willow flycatchers; the sporadic use of the 

reach for nesting means that even large effects are unlikely to harm birds. This represents, 

however, an appreciable adverse effect to critical habitat. The drawdown is likely to result in the 

loss of riparian vegetation for nesting and foraging and a reduction in wetted stream, which, in 

turn, will reduce the export of aquatic insects. 

The Effects to Riparian Ecosystems sections describes the work of Merritt and Bateman (2012) 

at Cherry Creek in central Arizona, where it was found that a simulated groundwater decline of 

6.6 feet (2 meters) below base level resulted in a nearly complete loss of riparian forest and 

conversion of the valley bottom to shrubland. We cannot directly compare Cherry Creek and 

Empire Gulch using the hydrology, geomorphology, or riparian mapping data that are available 

to us, nor do we know the current, drought-affected groundwater elevations in Empire Gulch, but 

the effects noted at the former site indicate that relatively small drawdowns can cause 

appreciable reductions in riparian vegetation. The 2.5-foot (or up to 5.0 feet) and 6-foot modeled 

decline that has been predicted at Upper Empire Gulch Springs at 150 and 1,000 years, 

respectively (Tetra Tech 2010) - given uncertainties regarding ongoing drought and climate 

change – could result in an appreciable loss of riparian vegetation (PCE 1) within some portion 

of the 0.4-km (0.3-mi) upper segment and 1.3-km (0.8- mi) lower segment of Empire Gulch, 

with lesser effects in the 17.9-km (11.1-mi) segment of mainstem Cienega Creek. 
337

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Table SWF-2. Modeled groundwater drawdowns within flycatcher critical habitat, including the limits of 

sensitivity analyses in parentheses.

20 years after mine closure

Location Montgomery (2010) Tetra Tech (2010) Myers (2010)

Gardner/Cienega Confluence <0.1

(Same)

<0.1

(Same) 0

Upper Empire Gulch Springs <0.1

(<0.1 - 0.1)

0.2

(<0.1 - 0.5) 0

Cienega near stream gage 

09484550 (perennial reach)

<0.1

(Same)

<0.1

(Same) 0

50 years after mine closure

Location Montgomery (2010) Tetra Tech (2010) Myers (2010)

Gardner/Cienega Confluence <0.1

(<0.1 - 0.1)

<0.1

(<0.1 - 0.15) 0

Upper Empire Gulch Springs <0.1

(<0.1 - 0.5)

0.5

(<0.1 - 1.8) 0.2

Cienega near stream gage 

09484560 (intermittent reach)

<0.1

(Same)

<0.1

(Same) 0

150 years after mine closure

Location Montgomery (2010) Tetra Tech (2010) Myers (2010)

Gardner/Cienega Confluence <0.1

(<0.1 – 0.4)

0.2

(<0.1 – 0.35) 0.1

Upper Empire Gulch Springs 0.3

(0.1 – 1.4)

2.5

(0.5 – 5.0) 0.3

Cienega near stream gage 

09484550 (perennial reach)

<0.1

(Same)

0.25

(<0.1 – 0.35) 0

1,000 years after mine closure

Location Montgomery (2010) Tetra Tech (2010) Myers (2010)

Gardner/Cienega Confluence <0.1

(<0.1 – 0.8)

0.5

(0.3 – 0.5) 2.2

Upper Empire Gulch Springs 3.3

(2.3 – 5.0)

6

(4.4 – 6.0) 4.3

Cienega near stream gage 

09484550 (perennial reach)

<0.1

(Same)

0.5

(0.4 – 0.5) 0.2

Table SWF-3, below, repeats the content of Table A-2, above; both are based on SWCA (2012). 

Table SWF-3 includes only the sites within critical habitat. There are anticipated to be no 

drawdowns, decreases in the wetted length of stream, decreases in baseflow, or decreases in 

riparian ET within the vicinity of flycatcher critical habitat at up to 150 years. At 1,000 years, 

drawdown is modeled to reach 0.01 foot, 0.16 mile (845 feet) of stream will be lost, baseflow 

will be diminished by 0.02 cfs, and riparian ET will decrease by 51afa. The loss of 845 feet of 

stream length and 51 afa of riparian ET will result in losses of riparian vegetation within and 

both up- and downstream from the affected reach. 

The predictions found in Table SWF-3, which were performed by Montgomery (2010) and 

referenced in SWCA (2012) , are not as severe as those that might be expected to result from the 

worst-case, 1,000-year scenario associated with Tetra Tech’s (2010) modeling, and they do 

provide spatial information regarding the affected stream length. If it is assumed that the 0.16 

mile of lost stream length represents the maximum extent of impacts to PCE 1 (riparian 
338

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

vegetation), then that loss represents 1.3 percent of the 12.2 miles of critical habitat in the 

Cienega Creek watershed, 0.56 percent of the critical habitat in the 28.8-mile Santa Cruz 

Management Unit, and immeasurably small fractions of both the Gila Recovery Unit (of which 

the Santa Cruz Management Area is a subdivision) and the rangewide critical habitat 

designation. These small-scale effects are incapable of diminishing the Management Unit, 

Recovery Unit, or the critical habitat’s respective abilities to contribute to the recovery of the 

species. 

Table SWF-3. Summary of effects to streams within southwestern willow flycatcher critical habitat

Upper Cienega Creek and the Narrows

Years after 

mining

Drawdown at 

perennial reach

Decrease in stream 

length (miles)

Decrease in 

baseflow (cfs)

Decrease in ET 

(afa)

0 0 0 0 0

20 0 0 0 0

150 0 0 0 0

1,000 0.01 0.16 0.02 51

Cumulative Effects – Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 

The primary cumulative effects to the riparian vegetation in which southwestern willow 

flycatchers occur and to the aquatic environment that supports an appreciable amount of the 

species prey are the stresses associated with decreases in water availability due to non-Federal 

actions. The aforementioned right-of-way vegetation maintenance activities conducted by 

Tucson Electric Power, which result in nearly-complete removal of riparian vegetation in the 

affected area of lower Cienega Creek (Pima County Regional Flood Control District 2009), are 

also a cumulative effect. This suite of cumulative effects were described in detail in the section 

containing descriptions of general effects to aquatic and riparian ecosystems and in the 

cumulative effects analysis for Gila chub; the findings in these prior analyses are incorporated 

herein via reference. 

CONCLUSION 

After reviewing the current status of the flycatcher and its critical habitat, the environmental 

baseline for the action area, the effects of the Rosemont Copper Mine, and the cumulative 

effects, it is the FWS's biological opinion that the Rosemont Mine, as proposed, is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of the flycatcher, and is not likely to destroy or adversely 

modify designated flycatcher critical habitat. We present this conclusion for the flycatcher for 

the following reasons: 

 We anticipate that the proposed action may result in immeasurably small losses of 

riparian vegetation in Empire Gulch and upper Cienega Creek from the conclusion of 

mining until 150 years later. We anticipate, however, that there will be appreciable 

losses of hydroriparian vegetation in Empire Gulch and lesser losses in upper Cienega 

Creek by 1,000 years after the conclusion of mining. Empire Gulch supported a likely 

southwestern willow flycatcher territory in 2011; upper Cienega Creek hosted a 
339

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

definitively-known territory in 2001. The low frequency of flycatcher breeding in the 

affected reaches makes it unlikely birds will be harmed or harassed by riparian vegetation 

losses resulting from implementation of the proposed action. 

 The low number, infrequent detections, and lack of persistent flycatcher territories along 

Empire Gulch and upper Cienega Creek can be contrasted with the population numbers 

for the greater Gila Recovery Unit, which contained 659 territories as of 2008 (the last 

year for which comprehensive, area-wide surveys were conducted) (Durst et al. 2008, p. 

12). 

 Southwestern willow flycatcher critical habitat exists in Empire Gulch and along Cienega 

Creek; effects to the critical habitat parallel the effects to the species. The proposed 

action will likely result in a significant loss of riparian vegetation (PCE 1) within some 

portion of the 0.4-km (0.3-mi) upper segment and 1.3-km (0.8- mi) lower segment of 

Empire Gulch, with lesser effects in the 17.9-km (11.1-mi) segment of mainstem Cienega 

Creek. 

 If the 0.16 mile of lost stream length at 1,000 years after mining calculated by 

Montgomery (2010) represents the maximum extent of impacts to PCE 1 (riparian 

vegetation), then it represents 1.3 percent of the 12.2 miles of critical habitat in the 

Cienega Creek watershed, 0.56 percent of the critical habitat in the 28.8-mile Santa Cruz 

Management Unit, and immeasurably small fractions of both the Gila Recovery Unit (of 

which the Santa Cruz Management Area is a subdivision) and the rangewide critical 

habitat designation. These small-scale, long-delayed effects are incapable of diminishing 

the recovery value of the Management Unit, Recovery Unit, or the total area designated 

as critical habitat. The proposed action therefore will not adversely modify or destroy 

southwestern willow flycatcher critical habitat. 

The conclusions of this biological opinion are based on full implementation of the project as 

described in the Description of the Proposed Action and Description of the Proposed 

Conservation Measures sections of this document. 

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT – SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW FLYCATCHER 

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulations pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act prohibit the take 

of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. “Take” is 

defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt 

to engage in any such conduct. “Harm” is further defined (50 CFR 17.3) to include significant 

habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly 

impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. “Harass” is

defined in the regulations as ``an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the 

likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal 

behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 

CFR 17.3). “Incidental take” is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the 
340

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 

7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered 

to be prohibited taking under the Act provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms 

and conditions of this Incidental Take Statement. 

Amount or Extent of Take – Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 

As demonstrated in the Environmental Baseline and Effects of the Proposed Action sections, 

above, southwestern willow flycatchers are unlikely to be harmed or harassed as a result of the 

proposed action. While available habitat within the project’s action area may change due to 

reductions in groundwater elevations and surface water flows, these changes will occur on a 

relatively small scale over hundreds of years, and are not anticipated to disrupt the species’ 

essential behavioral patterns. As discussed previously, habitat occupied by flycatchers is 

dynamic and can vary widely in suitability, location, and occupancy over relatively short periods 

of time. We, therefore, do not anticipate that implementation of the proposed action will result 

in the incidental take of any individuals of the species. 

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the 

purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and 

threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to 

minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to 

help implement recovery plans, or to develop information. 

1. We recommend that the Forest Service and Rosemont Copper Company facilitate 

implementing more consistent flycatcher presence/absence surveys, including nest 

searching and monitoring along lower Empire Gulch, upper Cienega Creek, and the Santa 

Cruz Management Unit using the latest accepted protocols to better understand the status 

of the flycatcher within the overall action area and the Management Unit. 

2. We recommend implementing long-term monitoring of groundwater resources in the 

Action Area, especially areas where the groundwater models were less than certain in 

their conclusions. We recommend employing a third party entity that has experience 

designing, collecting, and analyzing these types of data which can be held to high 

scientific scrutiny, such as the U.S. Geologic Survey. At a minimum, we recommend 

establishing baseline information to better understand how groundwater moves through 

the watershed, existing groundwater elevations, and other groundwater and surface water 

uses in the watershed, and subsequently tracking the Rosemont Copper Mine’s use of 

water and its comparative impact to the watershed. 
341

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

3. If impacts from Rosemont Mine are different from that those anticipated in this biological 

opinion, we recommend implementing measures to offset those impacts such as acquiring 

and retiring other water diversion or groundwater stressors. 

Disposition of Dead or Injured Listed Species 

Upon locating a dead, injured, or sick listed species initial notification must be made to the 

FWS's Law Enforcement Office (FWS OLE, Resident Agent In Charge, 4901 Paseo del Norte 

NE, Suite D, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87113; telephone: (505) 248-7889) within three 

working days of its finding. Written notification must be made within five calendar days and 

include the date, time, and location of the animal, a photograph if possible, and any other 

pertinent information. The notification shall be sent to the Law Enforcement Office with a copy 

to this office. Care must be taken in handling sick or injured animals to ensure effective 

treatment and care, and in handling dead specimens to preserve the biological material in the best 

possible state. 

REINITIATION NOTICE

This concludes formal and conference consultation on the actions outlined in your request. As 

provided in 50 CFR §402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary 

Federal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained (or is authorized by law) 

and if: (1) the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information reveals 

effects of the agency action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an 

extent not considered in this opinion; (3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner 

that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat not considered in this opinion; or (4) a 

new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action. In 

instances where the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, any operations causing such 

take must cease pending reinitiation. 

The Incidental Take Statements for the lesser long-nosed bat, jaguar, Chiricahua leopard frog, 

Gila chub, and Gila topminnow contain Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and 

Conditions that implement those measures. We reiterate that such measures are nondiscretionary, and must be included by the USFS as binding conditions of any grant or permit 

issued to the applicant, as appropriate, for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The USFS 

has a continuing duty to regulate the activity that is covered by the respective Incidental Take 

Statements. If the USFS (1) fails to assume and implement the terms and conditions, or (2) fails 

to require the applicant to adhere to the terms and conditions of the Incidental Take Statements 

through enforceable terms that are added to the permit or grant document, the protective 

coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to monitor the impact of incidental take, the 

USFS, or the applicant must report the progress of the action and its impact on the species as 

specified in the Incidental Take Statement [see 50 CFR 402.14(I)(3)]. 

Regarding the proposed action’s effects to proposed jaguar critical habitat, you may request the 

FWS to confirm the conference opinion as a biological opinion issued through formal 

consultation if the jaguar critical habitat is designated. The request must be in writing. If the 
342

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

FWS reviews the proposed action and finds that there have been no significant changes in the 

action as planned or in the information used during the conference, the FWS will confirm the 

conference opinion as the biological opinion on the project and no further section 7 consultation 

will be necessary. 

In keeping with our trust responsibility to American Indian Tribes for an action proposed by an 

agency not in the Department of Interior, subject to section 7 consultation, that may affect Indian 

lands, tribal trust resources, or tribal rights, we encourage you to coordinate with the Tohono 

O’odham Nation and the Hopi, Pascua Yaqui, and Yavapai Apache tribes and the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs (BIA). 

If you have questions or concerns about this consultation or the consultation process in general, 

feel free to contact Jean Calhoun (520) 670-6150 (x223) or Steve Spangle at (602) 242-0210 

(x244). Please refer to consultation number 22410-2009-F-0389 in future correspondence 

concerning this project. 

 Sincerely, 

 /s/ Steven L. Spangle 

 Field Supervisor 

cc (electronic): 

 Brenda Smith, Assistant Field Supervisor, Fish and Wildlife Service, Flagstaff, AZ 

 Jean Calhoun, Assistant Field Supervisor, Fish and Wildlife Service, Tucson, AZ 

Marjorie Blaine, Senior Project Manager, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tucson, AZ 

 Chief, Habitat Branch, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ 

Raul Vega, Regional Supervisor, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Tucson, AZ 

W:\Jason Douglas\Rosemont Final BO\FINAL Rosemont BO with final edits 10.30.docx:cgg 
343

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

LITERATURE CITED 

Description of the Proposed Action and Description of the Proposed Conservation 

Measures 

Ayres, J.E. 1984. Rosemont: The History and Archaeology of Post-1880 Sites in the Rosemont 

Area, Santa Rita Mountains, Arizona. Archaeological Series No. 147, Vol. 3. Tucson, 

Arizona: Cultural Resource Management Division, Arizona State Museum, University of 

Arizona. 

Brown, D.E. (ed.). 1994. Biotic Communities: Southwestern United States and Northwestern 

Mexico. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2013. Agency Review of the Internal Working Draft of the 

Rosemont Copper Company Draft Biological Opinion. 8 pp. 

CDM Smith. 2012. Preliminary Reclamation and Closure Plan for the Preferred Alternative. 

Prepared for the Rosemont Copper Company, Tucson, Arizona. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2011. Appropriate Use of Mitigation and Monitoring 

and Clarifying the Appropriate Use of Mitigated Findings of No Significant Impact. 

Prepared by N.H. Sutley. Washington, D.C.: Executive Office of the President, Council 

on Environmental Quality. January 14. 

Fehmi, J.S. 2007. Final Report for Phase I. Prepared for Augusta Resource Corporation. Tucson: 

School of Natural Resources, University of Arizona. July 6. 

Fehmi, J.S., T.M. Kong, and L. Wood. 2008. Phase II—Final Project Report. Prepared for 

August Resource Corporation. Tucson: School of Natural Resources, University of 

Arizona. December 17. 

Hendrickson , D.L. and W.L. Minckley. 1984. Cienegas – Vanishing Climax Communities of the 

American Southwest. Desert Plants 6: 131-175. 

McLaughlin, S., and W. Van Asdall. n.d. [1977]. Flora and vegetation of the Rosemont area. In 

An Environmental Inventory of the Rosemont Area in Southern Arizona, Vol. 1: The 

Present Environment, edited by R. Davis and J.R. Callahan, pp. 64–98. Tucson: 

University of Arizona. 

Minckley, W.L. and D.E. Brown. 1982. Wetlands. In D.E. Brown, ed. Biotic Communities of the 

American Southwest: United States and Mexico. Desert Plants 4: 222-287. 

Monrad, C.K., J. Benya, and D.L. Crawford. 2012. Rosemont Copper Project Light Pollution 

Mitigation Recommendation Report. Tucson, Arizona: Monrad Electrical Engineering 

Inc. January 24. 
344

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Pima County. 2013. GIS Layer: Riparian Habitat/IRA Underlaying Classifications MapGuide. 

Tucson, 40 Arizona: Pima County Information Technology Department. 

Poff, B., K.A. Koestner, D.G. Neary, and V. Henderson. 2011. Threats to riparian ecosystems in 

western North America: An analysis of existing literature. Journal of the American Water 

2 Resources Association 47(6):1241–1254.

Robbie, W. 2009. Supervisory Soil Scientist, U.S. Forest Service. Record of contact regarding 

ephemeral channels that support upland vegetation. Robert L. Fefevre, Soil Scientist, 

Coronado National Forest, Tucson, Arizona. September 8. 

SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA). 2011. Draft Biological Evaluation, Rosemont 

Copper Project, Santa Rita Mountains, Nogales Ranger District. Prepared for U.S. Forest 

Service, Coronado National Forest. Tucson, Arizona: SWCA Environmental Consultants. 

September. 

Tetra Tech. 2009b. Geotechnical Addendum. 3 vols. Project No. 320795. Prepared for Rosemont 

Copper Company. Tucson, Arizona: Tetra Tech. February. 

Tetra Tech.2010a. Reclamation Concept Update: Rosemont Copper Project. Project No. 114-

320832. Prepared for Rosemont Copper. Tucson, Arizona: Tetra Tech. March. 

Tetra Tech. 2010b. Site Water Management Update. Project No. 114-320828. 5 vols. Prepared 

for Rosemont Copper Company. Tucson, Arizona: Tetra Tech. April. 

Tetra Tech and Schafer. 2007. Baseline Geochemical Characterization. Project No. 320614. 

Prepared for Augusta Resource Corporation. Golden, Colorado: Tetra Tech; Bozeman, 

Montana: Schafer, Ltd. June. 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2009b. Coronado National Forest Ecological Sustainability Report. 

Southwestern Region. February. 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2012a, Biological Assessment, Rosemont Copper Company Project, 

Santa Rita Mountains, Nogales Ranger District. Prepared by SWCA Environmental 

Consultants and Coronado National Forest. June. 140 pp. plus appendices. 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2012b. Supplement to the Biological Assessment, Proposed 

Rosemont Copper Mine, Santa Rita Mountains, Arizona, Coronado National Forest. 

Prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants and Coronado National Forest. October. 

36 pp. plus appendices. 
345

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2012b. [Second] Supplement to the Biological Assessment, 

Proposed Rosemont Copper Mine, Santa Rita Mountains, Arizona, Coronado National 

Forest. Prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants and Coronado National Forest. 

October. 65 pp. 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013a. Supplement to the Biological Assessment Proposed 

Rosemont Copper Mine, Santa Rita Mountains, Pima County, Arizona, Nogales Ranger 

District. February 2013. 65 pp.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013b. Comments on Preliminary, Administrative Draft of the 

Description of the Proposed Action and Description of the Proposed Conservation 

Measures. Transmitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service via Electronic Mail. 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013c. Comments on the Draft Biological Opinion. Transmitted to 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service via Electronic Mail. 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013d. Comments on the Internal Review Draft of the Final 

Biological Opinion. Transmitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service via Electronic Mail. 

Water and Earth Technologies, Inc. 2012. Davidson Canyon Conceptual Surface-Water 

Monitoring Plan. March 2012. 49 pp. 

Western Regional Climate Center. 2009. Santa Rita Experimental Range, Arizona. Available at: 

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliNORMNCDC2000.pl?azsant. Accessed by SWCA 

during the preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. November 22, 2010. 

WestLand Resources, Inc. (WestLand). 2007. Mine Plan of Operations. Project No.

1049.05.B.700. Prepared for Augusta Resource Corporation. Tucson, Arizona: WestLand 

Resources, Inc. July 11. 

WestLand Resources, Inc. (WestLand). 2009a. Lesser Long-nosed Bat Survey of the Rosemont 

Holdings and Vicinity. Project No. 1049.10 330 330A. Prepared for Rosemont Copper 

Company. Tucson, Arizona: WestLand Resources, Inc. March 11. 

WestLand Resources, Inc. (WestLand). 2010a. Onsite Riparian Habitat Assessment, Rosemont 

Project. Project No. 1049.14. Prepared for Rosemont Copper Company. Tucson, Arizona: 

WestLand Resources, Inc. April. 

WestLand Resources, Inc. (WestLand). 2011a. Rosemont Copper Project: July 2011 Seeps and 

Springs Survey. Project No. 1049.14. Prepared for Rosemont Copper Company. Tucson, 

Arizona: WestLand Resources Inc. August 19. 
346

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

WestLand Resources, Inc. (WestLand). 2012a. Conservation Measures – Water Features. 

Prepared for Rosemont Copper Company. Tucson, Arizona: WestLand Resources, Inc 

November 12. 12 pp. plus figures. 

WestLand Resources, Inc. (WestLand). 2012b. Biological Assessment Supplement Lesser LongNosed Bat Forage and Roost Conservation Measures. 7 pp. plus figures. 

WestLand Resources, Inc. (WestLand). 2013a. Conservation Measures Summary. February 6. 36 

pp.

Williams, B.K., R.C. Szaro, and C.D. Shapiro. 2009. Adaptive Management: The U.S. 

Department of the Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 

Lesser Long-nosed Bat 

Arends, A., F. J. Bonaccorso, and M. Genoud. 1995. Basal rates of metabolism of nectarivorous 

bats (Phyllostomidae) from semiarid thorn forest in Venezuela. Journal of Mammalogy 

76:947–956. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2009. Lesser long-nosed bat roost count summary 

data (2005 – 2009) provided by Angela McIntire, AGFD Bat Program Manager, to Scott 

Richardson, USFWS, on August 13, 2009. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, 

AZ. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2009. Update on the lesser long-nosed bat 

hummingbird feeder and telemetry project given to the City of Tucson’s Habitat 

Conservation Plan Technical Advisory Committee on June 17, 2009. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2005. Comments submitted 5/3/05 and 5/12/05, in 

response to Federal Register Notice of Review (70 FR 5460) for the lesser long-nosed bat 

(Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae).

Bat Conservation Trust. 2008. Bats and lighting in the United Kingdom. In Bats and the Built 

Environment Series. 10 pp. 

Benson, L., and R.A. Darrow. 1982. Trees and shrubs of the Southwestern Deserts. University of 

Arizona Press, Tucson. 

Boldogh, S., D. Dobrosi, and P. Samu. 2007. The effects of illumination of buildings on housedwelling bats and its conservation consequences. Acta Chiropterologica 9 (2): 527 – 534.
347

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Brown, D. E. 1982a. Madrean Evergreen Woodland. Pp. 59-65 in Brown, D. E., ed. Biotic 

Communities of the American Southwest – United States and Mexico. Desert Plants 4(1-

4). University of Arizona, Boyce Thompson Southwestern Arboretum. 

Brown, D. E. 1982b. Plains and Great Basin Grasslands. Pp. 115-121 in Brown, D. E., ed. Biotic 

Communities of the American Southwest – United States and Mexico. Desert Plants 4(1-

4). University of Arizona, Boyce Thompson Southwestern Arboretum. 

Brown, D. E. 1982c. Semidesert Grassland. Pp. 137-141 in Brown, D. E., ed. Biotic 

Communities of the American Southwest – United States and Mexico. Desert Plants 4(1-

4). University of Arizona, Boyce Thompson Southwestern Arboretum. 

Brown, D. E. and C. H. Lowe. 1994. Biotic Communities of the Southwest. University of Utah 

Press. Map. 

Burger, W. P. 2009. Grand Canyon Bat Survey, January 22-28. Arizona Game and Fish 

Department Inter-office Memo, February 3, 2009. 

Burghardt, J. E. 2000. Bat-compatible closures of abandoned underground mines in national park 

system units. In Vories, K. C., and D. Throgmorton, eds. Bat conservation and mining: a 

technical interactive forum (2000: St. Louis, MS), US Dept. Interior, Office of Surface 

Mining, Southern Illinois Univ., Carbondale, Illinois. Available at internet site: 

http://www.mcrcc.osmre.gov/PDF/Forums/Bat%20Conservation/2f.pdf. 

Cockrum, E.L., and Y. Petryszyn. 1991. The lesser long-nosed bat. Leptonycteris: An 

endangered species in the Southwest? Texas Tech Univ., Occas. Pap. Mus., Number 142. 

Corbett, J. 2009. Survey data forms from internal mine surveys in the Agua Dulce Mountains, 

Cabeza Preita National Wildlife Refuge, Ajo, Arizona. 

Dalton, V.M., D.C. Dalton, and S.L. Schmidt. 1994. Roosting and foraging use of a proposed 

military training site by the long-nosed bat, Leptonycteris curasoae. Report to the Luke 

Air Force Natural Resources Program, Contract Nos. DACA65-94-M-0831 and 

DACA65-94-M-0753. 34pp. 

Downs, N.C., V. Beaton, J. Guest, J. Polanski, S.L. Robinson, and P.A. Racey. 2003. The effects 

of illuminating the roost entrance on the emergence behavior of Pipistrellus pygmaeus.

Biological Conservation 111: 247 – 252.

Fure, A. 2006. Bats and lighting. The London Naturalist 85: 1 – 20. 

Gentry, H.S. 1982. Agaves of continental North America. Pages 443-447 and 538-545, 

University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona. 
348

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Hoffmeister, D.F. 1986. Mammals of Arizona. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 

Holsbeek, L. 2008. Draft assessment of critical points – IWG on light pollution. In 13th Meeting 

of the Advisory Council of Eurobats. Doc. EUROBATS.AC13.13. 

Horner, M.A., T.H. Fleming, and M.D. Tuttle. 1990. Foraging and movement patterns of a nectar 

feeding bat: Leptonycteris curasoae. Bat Research News 31:81. 

Longcore, T. and C. Rich. 2004. Ecological light pollution. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2 (4): 191 –

198.

Lowery, S.F., S.T.Blackman, and D. Abbate. 2009. Urban movement patterns of lesser longnosed bats (Leptonycteris curasoae): management implications for the Habitat 

Conservation Plan within the City of Tucson and the Town of Marana. AGFD Final 

Report. 21 pp. 

Ludlow, M.E. and J.A. Gore. 2000. Effects of a cave gate on emergence patterns of colonial bats. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:191-196. 

Nabhan, G.P. and T.H. Fleming. 1993. The conservation of new world mutualisms. Conservation 

Biology 7(3): 457 – 459. 

Ober, H.K. and R.J. Steidl. 2004. Foraging rates of Leptonycteris curasoae vary with 

characteristics of Agave Palmeri. The Southwestern Naturalist 49(1): 68 – 74.

Ober, H.K., R.J. Steidl, and V.M. Dalton. 2000. Foraging ecology of lesser long-nosed bats. 

Final Report. University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. 25 pp.

 

Powell, B. F., W. L. Halvorson, and C. A. Schmidt. 2006. Vascular Plant and Vertebrate 

Inventory of Saguaro National Park, Rincon Mountain District. OFR 2006-1075. U.S. 

Geological Survey, Southwest Biological Science Center, Sonoran Desert Research 

Station, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. 

Powell, B. F., W. L. Halvorson, and C. A. Schmidt. 2007. Vascular Plant and Vertebrate 

Inventory of Saguaro National Park, Tucson Mountain District. OFR 2007-1296. U.S. 

Geological Survey, Southwest Biological Science Center, Sonoran Desert Research 

Station, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. 

Rogers, G.F. 1985. Mortality of burned Cereus giganteus. Ecology 66 (2): 630 – 632.

Rydell, J. 1992. Exploitation of insects around streetlamps by bats in Sweden. Functional 

Ecology 6: 744 – 750. 
349

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Sahley, C.T., M.A. Horner, and T.H. Fleming. 1993. Flight speeds and mechanical power 

outputs of the nectar-feeding bat, Leptonycteris curasoae (Phyllostomidae: 

Glossophaginae. Journal of Mammalogy 74(3): 594 – 600. 

Scanlon, A.T. and S. Petit. 2008. Effects of site, time, weather, and light on urban bat activity 

and richness: considerations for survey effort. Wildlife Research 35 (8): 821 – 834. 

Sherwin, RE., J.S. Altenbach and DL. Waldien. 2009. Managing abandoned mines for bats. Bat 

Conservation International, Austin, TX. 103 pp.

Sidner, R. 2000. Report of activities under permit TE-821369-0. Report to the US Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

Sidner, R. 2005. Fifteen years of monitoring the endangered lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris 

curasoae) and other bat species on the Fort Huachuca Military Installation, Cochise 

County, Arizona. June-November 2004. EEC Project Report to Commander, U.S. Army 

Garrison, Fort Huachuca, AZ. 105 pp. 

Sidner, R. 2009. Nineteenth annual monitoring of the endangered lesser long-nosed bat 

(Leptonycteris curasoae) and other bat species on the Fort Huachuca Military 

Installation, Cochise County, Arizona, February – November 2008. Report to 

Commander, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Huachuca, Arizona. 92pp.

Sidner, R. and F. Houser. 1990. Lunarphilia in nectar-feeding bats in Arizona. Bat Research 

News 31(4):15. 

Stone, E.L., G. Jones, and S. Harris. 2009. Street lighting disturbs commuting bats. Current 

Biology (2009), doi:10.1016/j.cub.2009.05.058. 

Tibbitts, T. 2006. Annual report for threatened and endangered species permit No. TE19458. 

Resources Management Division. Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Ajo, Ariozna. 

Tibbitts, Tim. 2005. Annual report for threatened and endangered species permit No. TE19458-

1. Resources Management Division, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Ajo, 

Arizona. 

Turner, R. M. and D. E. Brown. 1982. Sonoran Desertscrub. Pp. 181-221 in Brown, D. E., ed. 

Biotic Communities of the American Southwest – United States and Mexico. Desert 

Plants 4(1-4). University of Arizona, Boyce Thompson Southwestern Arboretum. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 

determination of endangered status for two long-nosed bats. Federal Register 

53(190):38456-3860. 
350

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Lesser long-nosed bat recovery plan. Albuquerque, New 

Mexico. 49pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: 5-year 

review of lesser long-nosed bat, black-capped vireo, Yuma clapper rail, Pima pineapple 

cactus, gypsum wild-buckwheat, Mesa Verde cactus, and Zuni fleabane. Federal Register 

70(21):5460-5463. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007a. Biological Opinion for Ongoing and Future Military 

Operations on Fort Huachuca. Consultation 22410-2007-F-0132. Arizona Ecological 

Services Office, Phoenix. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007b. Final 5-Year Review Summary and Evaluation for the 

Lesser Long-Nosed Bat. Arizona Ecological Services Office, Phoenix. 43 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007c. Biological Opinion for Installation of One 600 Kilowatt 

Wind Turbine and One 50KW Mass Megawatts Wind Machine on Fort Huachuca. 

Arizona Ecological Services Office, Phoenix. 

Weiss, J.L., and J.T. Overpeck. 2005. Is the Sonoran Desert losing its cool? Global Change 

Biology 11:2065-2077. 

Winter, Y., J. Lopez, and O. von Helversen. 2003. Ultraviolet vision in a bat. Nature 425: 612 –

614.

Wolf, S. and D. Dalton. 2005. Comments submitted 4/20/05 and 5/2/05, in response to Federal 

Register Notice of Review (70 FR 5460) for the lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris 

curasoae yerbabuenae).

Ocelot 

Avila-Villegas, S. and J.A. Lamberton-Moreno. 2012. "Wildlife Survey and Monitoring in the 

Sky Island Region with an Emphasis on Neotropical Felids" in Gottfried, Gerald J.; 

Ffolliott, Peter F.; Gebow, Brooke S.; and Eskew, Lane G., compilers. 2012. Merging 

science and management in a rapidly changing world: biodiversity and management of 

the Madrean Archipelago III. 2012 May 1-5, Tucson, AZ. Proceedings RMRS-P-67. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 

Beier, P. 1995. Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitat. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 59:228–237. 

Bisbal, F.J. 1986. Food habits of some neotropical carnivores in Venezuela (Mammalia, 

Carnivora). Mammalia 50: 330-339. 
351

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Booth-Binczik, S.D. 2007. Report from the field: monitoring Ocelot Dispersal with Satellite 

telemetry. Endangered Species Update 24(4): 110-112. 

Casariego Madorell, M. A. 1998. Estimacion del tamaño poblacional del ocelote (Leopardus 

pardalis) en una selva baja caducifolia de la costa de Jalisco, Mexico. Bachelor’s Thesis 

ENEP-UNAM Iztacala, Mexico.

Caso, A. 1994. Home range and habitat use of three neotropical carnivores in northeast Mexico. 

Unpublished M.S. thesis, Texas A&M University, Kingsville, TX, 78 pp. 

Caso, A., Lopez-Gonzalez, C., Payan, E., Eizirik, E., de Oliveira, T., Leite-Pitman, R., Kelly, M. 

& Valderrama, C. 2008. Leopardus pardalis. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of 

Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 07 March 

2013.

Crawshaw, Jr. P.G. 1995. Comparative ecology of ocelot (Felis pardalis) and jaguar (Panthera 

onca) in a protected subtropical forest in Brazil and Argentina. PhD thesis. University of

Florida.

Crawshaw, P. G., Jr. 1995. Comparative ecology of ocelot (Felis pardalis) and jaguar (Panthera 

onca) in a protected subtropical forest in Brazil and Argentina. Ph.D. dissertation, 

University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 

Crashaw, P.G., Jr., and H.B. Quigley. 1989. Notes on ocelot movement and activity in the 

Pantanal Region, Brazil. Biotropica 21:377-379. 

de Villa Meza, A., E. Martinez Meyer, C.A. López González. 2002. Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) 

food habits in a tropical deciduous forest of Jalisco, Mexico. American Midland 

Naturalist 148: 146-154.

Dillon, A. and M.J. Kelly. 2008. Ocelot home range, overlap and density: comparing radio 

telemetry with camera trapping. Journal of Zoology 275 (2008) 391-398. 

Eaton, R. 1977. Breeding biology and propagation of the ocelot (Leopardus [Felis] pardalis).

Zool. Garten Jena 47:9-23. 

Emmons, L.H. 1987. Comparative feeding ecology of felids in a neotropical forest. Behavioral 

Ecology and Sociobiology 20:271-283. 

Emmons, L.H. 1988. A field study of ocelots (Felis pardalis) in Peru. Review of Ecology (Terre 

Vie) 43:133-157. 
352

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Emmons, L.H, P. Sherman, D. Bolster, A. Goldizen, and J. Terborgh. 1989. Ocelot behavior in 

moonlight. Pp. 233–242 in Redford, K. H. & Eisenberg, J. F. (eds.). Advances in 

Neotropical mammalogy. Sandhill Crane Press, Inc., Gainesville. 

Fernandez, E. C. 2002. Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) ecology in the Chamela-Cuixmala 

Biosphere Reserve, Jalisco, Mexico. M.S. thesis. University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. 

Grigione, M.M., K. Menke, C. Lopez-Gonzalez, R. List, A. Banda, J. Carrera, R. Carrera, A.J. 

Giordano, J. Morrison, M. Sternberg, R. Thomas, and B. Van Pelt. 2009. Identifying 

potential conservation areas for felids in the USA and Mexico: integrating reliable 

knowledge across an international border. Oryx, 43, 78-86. 

Grigione, M. M. and R. Mrykalo. 2004. Effects of artificial night lighting on endangered ocelots 

(Leopardus paradalis) and nocturnal prey along the United States-Mexico border: A 

literature review and hypotheses of potential impacts. Urban Ecosystems 7: 65-77. 

Hall, E.R. 1981. The mammals of North America. Vol. II. John Wiley and Sons, NY. 

Holbrook, J.D., R.W. DeYoung, M.E. Tewes, J.H. Young, J.L. Mays, and E. Meyers. 2011. 

Natural dispersal or illegal pets? Limitations on assigning origin to road-killed ocelots in 

the southwestern United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 35: 504–507.

Horne, J.S. 1998. Habitat partitioning of sympatric ocelot and bobcat in southern Texas. Thesis, 

Texas A & M University-Kingsville, Kingsville, TX. 

Jackson, V.L., L.L. Laack, and E.G. Zimmerman. 2005. Landscape metrics associated with 

habitat use by ocelots in south Texas. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:733-738. 

Konecny, M.J. 1989. Movement patterns and food habits of four sympatric carnivore species in 

Belize, Central America. Pages 243-264 in K.H. Redford and J.F. Eisenberg, editors. 

Advances in neotropical mammalogy. Sandhill Crane Press, Gainesville, FL. 

Laack, L.L. 1991. Ecology of the ocelot (Felis pardalis) in south Texas. M.S. thesis, Texas A&I 

University, Kingsville, TX. 113 pp. 

Laack, L. L., M. E. Tewes, A. H. Haines, J. H. Rappole. 2005. Reproductive ecology of ocelot 

(Leopardus pardalis) in southern Texas. Acta Theriologica 50:505-514.

López González, C. A., D. E. Brown, and J. P. Gallo-Reynoso. 2003. The ocelot Leopardus 

pardalis in north-western Mexico: ecology, distribution and conservation status. Oryx 

37:358-364.

Lomolino, M.V., and R. Channell. 1995. Splendid isolation: Patterns of geographic range 

collapse in endangered mammals. Journal of Mammalogy 76:335-347. 
353

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Longcore, T. and C. Rich. 2004. Ecological Light Pollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment 2(4):191-198. 

Ludlow, M. 1986. Home range activity patterns of ocelot (Felis pardalis) in Venezuela. M.S. 

thesis, Department of Wildlife and Range Sciences, University of Florida. 

Ludlow, M. E., and M. E. Sunquist. 1987. Ecology and behavior of ocelots in Venezuela. 

National Geographic Research and Exploration 3:447-461 

Maffei, L., A. J. Noss, E. Cuellar, and D. I. Rumiz. 2005. Ocelot (Felis pardalis) population 

densities, activity, and ranging behavior in the dry forests of eastern Bolivia: data from 

camera trapping. Journal of Tropical Ecology 21:1-6. 

Mora, M.A., L.L Laack, M.C/ Lee, J. Sericano, R. Presley, P.R. Gardinali, L.R. Gamble, S. 

Robertson, and D. Frank. 2000. Environmental contaminants in blood, hair, and tissues of 

ocelots from the Lower Rio Grande Valley, Texas, 1986-1997. Environmental 

Monitoring and Assessment 64:447-492. 

Murray, J. L. and G. L. Gardner. 1997. Leopardus pardalis. Mammalian Species 548:1-10. 

Navarro-Lopez, D. 1985. Status and distribution of the ocelot in South Texas. M.S. thesis, Texas 

A & I University, Kingsville, TX. 92 pp. 

NoiseQuest. 2013. What does noise affect? Available at: 

http://www.noisequest.psu.edu/NoiseAffect.Introduction.html Accessed April 10, 2013. 

Nowell, K., and P. Jackson. 1996. Wild cats, status survey and conservation action plan. 

IUCN/SSC cat Specialist Group. 382 pp. 

Pater, L.L., T.G. Grubb, and D.K. Delaney. 2009. Recommendations for Improved Assessment 

of Noise Impacts on Wildlife. The Journal of Wildlife Management 73(5):788-795. 

SEMARNAT. 2002. NORMA Oficial Mexicana (NOM-059-ECOL-2001) - Protección 

ambiental-Especies nativas de México de flora y fauna silvestres-Categorías de riesgo y 

especificaciones para su inclusión, exclusión o cambio-Lista de especies en riesgo. Diario 

Oficial de la Federación. 

Sky Island Alliance. 2013. Northern Mexico Conservation Program. 

http://www.skyislandalliance.org/jaguars.htm. Accessed 20 March 2013. 

Tewes, M. E. 1986. Ecological and behavioral correlates of ocelot spatial patterns. Unpublished 

Ph.D. dissertation, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 128 pp. 
354

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Tewes, M.E., and D.J. Schmidly. 1987. The neotropical felids: jaguar, ocelot, margay, and 

jaguarundi. Pp 695-712 in M. Novak, J.A. Baker, M.E. Obbard, and B. Malloch, editors.

Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. Ministry of Natural 

Resources, Ontario, Canada. 1150 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1972. List of Endangered Foreign Fish and Wildlife. 37 

FR:2589, March 28, 1972. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1974. Endangered foreign wildlife. 39 FR:1171, January 

4, 1974.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1982. Endangered Status for the U.S. Population of the 

Ocelot. 47 FR:31670, July 21, 1982. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1990. Listed cats of Texas and Arizona recovery plan 

(with emphasis on the ocelot). FWS, Albuquerque, NM. 131 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2003. Endangered and threatened wildlife. Code of 

Federal Regulations, Title 50, Section 17.11. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010. Draft Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) Recovery Plan 

(revised). FWS, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, NM. 170 pp. 

Villa Meza, A., E.M. Meyer, and C.A. Lopez-Gonzalez. 2002. Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) food 

habits in a tropical deciduous forest of Jalisco, Mexico. American Midland Naturalist 

148:146-15. 

WestLand Resources, Inc. 2012. Rosemont Copper Project: Potential Effects of Lighting 

Associated with the Rosemont Project on Endangered Species. Project number 1049.21, 

December 07, 2012. 

Jaguar 

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2012 Rosemont Game/Hunter Effects table. Attachment to 

Jnauary 18, 2012, comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Phoenix, 

Arizona. 

Barber, J.R., K.R. Crooks, and K.M. Fristrup. 2009. The costs of chronic noise exposure for 

terrestrial organisms. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25(3): 180-189. 

Beier, P. 2006. Effects of artificial night lighting on terrestrial mammals. Pages 19-42. In Rich, 

C., and T. Longcore, eds. 2006. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. 

Island Press, Washington. 
355

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Beier P. and R. Barrett, 1993, The cougar in the Santa Ana mountain range, California. Berkeley, 

California, 104 pp. 

Beier, P. 1995. Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitat. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 59:228–237. 

Boydston, E.E. and C.A. López-González. 2005. Sexual differentiation in the distribution 

potential of northern jaguars (Panthera onca). Pp. 51-56 in Gottfried, G.J., B.S. Gebow, 

L.G. Eskew, and C.B. Edminster, comp., Connecting Mountain Islands and Desert Seas: 

Biodiversity and Management of the Madrean Archipelago II, RMRS-P-36, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO. 

Brown, D.E. 1983. On the status of the jaguar in the Southwest. Southwestern Nat. 28:459-460. 

Brown DE. 1989. Cat fever. Game Country (May/June 1989):63-72. 

Brown, D.E. and C.A. López-González. 2001. Borderland jaguars: tigres de la frontera.

University of Utah Press. 170 pp.

Carroll, C., R. F. Noss, and P. C. Paquet. 2001. Carnivores as focal species for conservation 

planning in the Rocky Mountain region. Ecological Applications 11:961-980.

Caso, A. 1994. Home range and habitat use of three neotropical carnivores in northeast Mexico.

Unpublished M.S. thesis, Texas A&M University, Kingsville, TX, 78 pp. 

Caso, A., C. Lopez-Gonzalez, E. Payan, E. Eizirik, T. de Oliveira, R. Leite-Pitman, M. Kelly, 

and C. Valderrama. 2008. Panthera onca. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened 

Species. Version 2010.4. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 31 May 2011. 

Cavalcanti, S.M.C. and E.M. Gese. 2009. Spatial ecology and social interactions of jaguars 

(Panthera onca) in the southern Pantanal, Brazil. Journal of Mammalogy 90(4):935-945. 

Channell, R. and M.V. Lomolino. 2000. Dynamic biogeography and conservation of endangered 

species. Nature 403:84-86. 

Chávez, C., and G. Ceballos. 2006. Memorias del Primer Simposio. El Jaguar Mexicano en el 

Siglo XXI: Situación Actual y Manejo. CONABIO-Alianza WWF Telcel-Universidad 

Nacional Autónoma de México. México D.F.

Chávez, C., G. Ceballos, R. Medellin, and H. Zarza. 2007. Primer censo nacional del jaguar. Pp.

133-141 in Ceballos, G, C. Chávez, R. List y H. Zarza (editores). 2007. Conservación y 

manejo del jaguar en México: estudios de caso y perspectivas. Conabio - Alianza WWFTelcel – Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. México. 
356

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Childs, J. L. 1998. Tracking the felids of the borderlands. Printing Corner Press, El Paso, TX. 77 

pp.

Colchero, F., D.A. Conde, C. Manterola, C. Chávez, A. Rivera, and G. Ceballos. 2010. Jaguars 

on the move: modeling movement to mitigate fragmentation from road expansion in the 

Mayan Forest. Animal Conservation 14: 158-166. 

Conde, D.A., F. Colchero, H. Zarza, N.L. Christensen Jr, J. Sexton, C. Manterola, A. Rivera, C.

Chavez, D. Azuara, and G. Ceballos. 2010. Sex matters: modeling male and female 

jaguar habitat for conservation. Biological Conservation 143, 1980–1988.

Crawshaw, P.G. and H.B. Quigley. 1991. Jaguar spacing, activity and habitat use in a seasonally 

flooded environment in Brazil. Journal of Zoology 223: 357-370. 

Dickson, B.G., J.S. Jenness, and P. Beier. 2005. Influence of Vegetation, Topography, and Roads 

on Cougar Movement in Southern California. Journal of Wildlife Management 69(1): 

264-276.

Glenn, W. 1996. Eyes of fire: encounter with a borderlands jaguar. Printing Corner Press, El 

Paso, Texas. 28 pp.

Green Valley Recreation Hiking Club. 2013. http://www.gvrhc.org/, accessed May 23, 2013 

Grigione, M.M., K. Menke, C. Lopez-Gonzalez, R. List, A. Banda, J. Carrera, R. Carrera, A.J.

Giordano, J. Morrison, M. Sternberg, R. Thomas, and B. Van Pelt. 2009. Identifying 

potential conservation areas for felids in the USA and Mexico: integrating reliable 

knowledge across an international border. Oryx, 43, 78-86. 

Haag, T., A.S. Santos, D.A. Sana, R.G. Morato, L. Cullen Jr., P.G. Crawshaw Jr., C. de Angelo, 

M.S. Di Bitetti, F.M. Salzano, and E. Eizirik. 2010. The effect of habitat fragmentation 

on the genetic structure of a top predator: loss of diversity and high differentiation among 

remnant populations of Atlantic Forest jaguars (Panthera onca). Molecular Ecology 

2010: 1-16.

Hass, C.C. 2002. Home range dynamics of white-nosed coatis in southeastern Arizona. Journal 

of Mammalogy 83:934–946. 

Hatten, J.R., A. Averill-Murray, and W.E. Van Pelt. 2002. Characterizing and mapping potential 

jaguar habitat in Arizona. Technical Report 203, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife 

Program, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix. 32pp. 

Hatten, J.R., A. Averill-Murray, and W.E. Van Pelt. 2005. A spatial model of potential jaguar 

habitat in Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Management 69(3):1024-1033. 
357

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Hoogesteijn R. and A. Hoogesteijn. 2010 Conserving Wild Felids in Humanized Landscapes: 

Strategies for Reducing Conflicts between Jaguars and Cattle. Wild Felid Monitor: 

Publication of the Wild Felid Research and Management Association 3(2): 1-13.

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). 2007. Jaguar.

http://lynx.uio.no/lynx/catsgportal/cat-website/20_cat-website/home/index_en.htm/.

Accessed April, 2007. 

Johnson, T.B., W.E. Van Pelt, and J.N. Stuart. 2011. Jaguar conservation assessment for 

Arizona, New Mexico and Northern Mexico. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife 

Program, AGFD, Phoenix. 81pp. 

Kerley, L.L., J.M. Goodrich, D.G. Miquelle, E.N. Smirnov, H.B. Quigley, and M.G. Hornocker.

2002. Effects of roads and human disturbance on Amur tigers. Conservation Biology 

16:97–108.

Lange, K. I. 1960. The jaguar in Arizona. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Sciences 

63:96-101.

Lesica, P., and F. W. Allendorf. 1995. When are peripheral populations valuable for 

conservation? Conservation Biology 9: 753–760. 

Longcore, T. and C. Rich. 2004. Ecological Light Pollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment 2(4):191-198. 

López-González, C. A. and B. J. Miller. 2002. Do jaguars (Panthera onca) depend on large 

prey? Western North American Naturalist 62(2): 218–222. 

López-Gónzalez, C.A. and D. Brown. 2002. Pp. 379-391 in Medellin, R.A., C. Equihua, C.L.B.

Chetkiewicz, P.G. Crawshaw, Jr., A. Rabinowitz, K.H. Redord, J.G. Robinson, E.W.

Sanderson, and A.B. Taber, comps. 2002. El jaguar en el nuevo millenio. Fondo de 

Cultura Económica, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Wildlife Conservation 

Society, México. 647pp.

López-González 2011, pers. comm. 

Manriquez 2011 (July 15, 2011, email to FWS) 

McCain, E.B. and J.L. Childs. 2008. Evidence of resident jaguars (Panthera onca) in the 

southwestern United States and the implications for conservation. Journal of 

Mammology, 89(1):1-10. 

Medellin, R.A. 2009. The conservation of jaguars: A top priority for Latin America. Jaguar 

News 35: 2. 
358

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Medellin, R.A., C. Equihua, C.L.B. Chetkiewicz, P.G. Crawshaw, Jr., A. Rabinowitz, K.H.

Redord, J.G. Robinson, E.W. Sanderson, and A.B. Taber, comps. 2002. El jaguar en el 

nuevo millenio. Fondo de Cultura Económica, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de 

México, Wildlife Conservation Society, México. 647pp.

Menke, K.A., and C.L. Hayes. 2003. Evaluation of the relative suitability of potential jaguar 

habitat in New Mexico. Report to New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, 

New Mexico. 31pp.

Monroy-Vichis, O., C. Rodríguez-Soto, M. Zarco-González, and V. Urios. 2007. Distribución, 

uso de hábitat y patrones de actividad el puma y jaguar en el estado de México. Pp 59-69 

in Ceballos, G, C. Chávez, R. List, y H. Zarza (editores). 2007. Conservación y manejo 

del jaguar en México: estudios de caso y perspectivas. Conabio - Alianza WWF- Telcel –

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. México. 

Montgomery and Associates Inc. 2010. Revised Report: Groundwater Flow Modeling Conducted 

for Simulation of Proposed Rosemont Pit Dewatering and Post-closure, Vol. 1: Text and 

Tables. Prepared for Rosemont Copper. Tucson, Arizona: Montgomery and Associates 

Inc. August 30. 

Murphy, K. M. 1983. Relationships between a mountain lion population and hunting pressure.

M. S. thesis. University of Montana, Missoula. 

Ngoprasert, D., A.J. Lynam, and G.A. Gale. 2007. Human disturbance affects habitat use and 

behaviour of Asiatic leopard Panthera pardus in Kaeng Krachan National Park, 

Thailand. Oryx 41(3): 343-351

NoiseQuest. 2013. What does noise affect? Available at: 

http://www.noisequest.psu.edu/NoiseAffect.Introduction.html Accessed April 10, 2013. 

Noss, R.F., H.B. Quigley, M.G. Hornocker, T. Merril, and P.C. Paquet. 1996. Conservation 

biology and carnivore conservation in the Rocky Mountains. Conservation Biology 

10:949–963. 

Nowak, R.M. 1975. Retreat of the jaguar. National Parks Conservation Magazine 49:10-13. 

Nowell, K., and P. Jackson. 1996. Wild cats: status survey and conservation action plan.

IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, United Kingdom. 

Núñez, R., B. Miller, and F. Lindzey. 2002. Ecología del jaguar en la reserva de la biosfera de 

Chamela-Cuixmala, Jalisco, México. Pp. 99-118 in Medellin, R.A.,C. Equihua, C.L.B.

Chetkiewicz, P.G. Crawshaw, Jr., A. Rabinowitz, K.H. Redord, J.G. Robinson, E.W.

Sanderson, and A.B. Taber, comps. 2002. El jaguar en el nuevo millenio. Fondo de 

Cultura Económica, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Wildlife Conservation 

Society, México. 647pp.
359

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Núñez, R., B. Miller, and F. Lindzey. 2000. Food habits of jaguars and pumas in Jalisco, Mexico.

Journal of Zoology, London, 252: 373-379.

.

Núñez, R., B. Miller, and F. Lindzey. 2002. Ecología del jaguar en la reserva de la biosfera de 

Chamela-Cuixmala, Jalisco, México. Pp. 99-118 in Medellin, R.A.,C. Equihua, C.L.B.

Chetkiewicz, P.G. Crawshaw, Jr., A. Rabinowitz, K.H. Redord, J.G. Robinson, E.W.

Sanderson, and A.B. Taber, comps. 2002. El jaguar en el nuevo millenio. Fondo de 

Cultura Económica, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Wildlife Conservation 

Society, México. 647pp.

Núñez-Pérez, R. 2006. Área de actividad, patrones de actividad y movimiento del jaguar 

(Panthera onca) y del puma (Puma concolor), en la Reserva de la Biosfera “Chamela –

Cuixmala”, Jalisco. M.S. Thesis, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México, 

D.F. 

Núñez-Pérez 2011 (August 2, 2011, email to FWS) 

Núñez-Pérez, R. 2011. Estimating jaguar population density using camera-traps: a comparison 

with radio-telemetry estimates. Journal of Zoology (2011) 1-7. 

Panthera. 2011. Jaguars. http://www.panthera.org/species/jaguar, accessed on June 13, 2011. 

Pater, L.L., T.G. Grubb, and D.K. Delaney. 2009. Recommendations for Improved Assessment 

of Noise Impacts on Wildlife. The Journal of Wildlife Management 73(5):788-795. 

Quigley, H. B., and P. G. Crawshaw, Jr. 1992. A conservation plan for the jaguar Panthera onca

in the Pantanal region of Brazil. Biological Conservation 61(3):149-157. 

Rabinowitz, A. 1999. Present status of jaguars (Panthera onca) in the southwestern United 

States. The Southwestern Naturalist 44(1):96-100. 

Rabinowitz A.R and B. G. Nottingham Jr. 1986. Ecology and behaviour of the jaguar (Panthera 

onca) in Belize, Central America. Journal of Zoology 210:149-159. 

Rabinowitz and Zeller 2010 

Robinson, M.J., C. Bradley, and J. Boyd. 2006. Potential habitat for jaguars in New Mexico.

Report to AGFD (AGFD) from Center for Biological Diversity, Silver City, New 

Mexico. 

Rosas-Rosas O.C. 2006. Ecological status and conservation of jaguars (Panthera onca) in 

northeastern Sonora, Mexico. Ph.D. Dissertation, New Mexico State University, Las 

Cruces, New Mexico. 

Rosas-Rosas 2011 (August 6, 2011, email to FWS) 
360

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Rosas-Rosas, O. C., and L. C. Bender. 2012. Population status of jaguars (Panthera onca) and 

pumas (Puma concolor) in northeastern Sonora, Mexico. Acta Zoológica Mexicana 28: 

86-101.

Rosas-Rosas O.C., L.C. Bender, and R. Valdez. 2008. Jaguar and puma predations on cattle 

calves in northeastern Sonora, Mexico. Rangeland Ecology and Management 61(5):554-

560.

Rosas-Rosas O.C., L.C. Bender, R. Valdez. 2010. Habitat correlates of jaguar kill-sites of cattle 

in northeastern Sonora, Mexico. Human-Wildlife Interactions 4(1):103-111. 

Sanderson, E.W., and K. Fisher. 2011. Digital mapping in support of recovery planning for the 

northern jaguar. Final report under agreement F11AC00036 (and modification #0001) 

between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Wildlife Conservation Society. Pp. 1-

11 of 20.

Sanderson, E.W., and K. Fisher. 2013a. Jaguar Habitat Modeling and Database Update. Wildlife 

Conservation Society. Bronx, New York. 10 pp. plus appendices. 

Sanderson, E.W., and K. Fisher. 2013b. Jaguar Habitat Modeling and Database Update (Final 

Report). Wildlife Conservation Society. Bronx, New York. 10 pp. plus appendices. 

Sanderson, E.W., K.H. Redford, C.B. Chetkiewicz, R.A. Medellin, A.R. Rabinowitz, J.G.

Robinson, and A.B. Taber. 2002. Planning to save a species: the jaguar as a model.

Conservation Biology 16(1):58-72. 

Sawyer, H., R.M. Nielson, F. Lindzey, and L.L. McDonald. 2006. Winter habitat selection of 

mule deer before and during development of a natural gas field. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 70(2): 396–403.

Seymour, K.L. 1989. Panthera onca. Mammalian Species 340:1-9. 

Sierra Institute Field Studies Program in Arizona. 2000. Jaguar habitat in southern Arizona and 

New Mexico. Unpublished report, University of California Extension, Santa Cruz. 

Swank, W.G. and J.G. Teer. 1989. Status of the jaguar - 1987. Oryx 23:14-21.

Tetra Tech. 2008. Background Ambient Noise Study. Project No. 114-320776 (100-SFOT22436). Prepared for Rosemont Copper Company. Tucson, Arizona: Tetra Tech.

October. 

Tetra Tech. 2009d. Supplemental Noise Study, Rosemont Copper Project. Project No. 114-

320794 (100-SFO-T22436; 100-SFO-T23373). Prepared for Rosemont Copper 

Company. Tucson, Arizona: Tetra Tech. April. 
361

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Tetra Tech. 2010. Regional Groundwater Flow Model, Rosemont Copper Project. Tetra Tech 

Project No,. 114-320874. Prepared for Rosemont Copper. Tucson, Arizona. November. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1990. Listed Cats of Texas and Arizona Recovery Plan 

(with Emphasis on the Ocelot. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2, Albuquerque, 

New Mexico. 131pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004. Memorandum from the Director to the Regional 

Directors of Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 and the California-Nevada Operations Office 

regarding Application of the “Destruction or Adverse Modification” Standard under 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act. 3pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Ocelot Recovery Plan (Leopardus pardalis) - Draft First 

Revision. Southwest Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

99 pp. plus appendices. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2012a. Recovery outline for the jaguar (Panthera onca).

April 2012. 59 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2012b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Designation of Critical Habitat for Jaguar: Proposed Rule 77 FR 50214-50242.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 2012c. Memorandum from the Field Supervisor to 

Industrial Economics, Inc. regarding Incremental Effects Memorandum for the Economic 

Analysis for the Proposed Rule to Designate Critical Habitat for the Jaguar. 16 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2013. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Designation of Critical Habitat for Jaguar: Proposed Rule. Revised. 78 FR 39237-39250.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2011. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont 

Copper Project. A Proposed Mining Operation in Coronado National Forest, Pima 

County, Arizona: U.S. Forest Service, Southwestern Region. September. 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2012. Supplement to the Biological Assessment, Proposed 

Rosemont Copper Mine, Santa Rita Mountains, Pima County, Arizona, Nogales Ranger 

District. February. 65 pp. 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013a. [Second] Supplement to the Biological Assessment, 

Proposed Rosemont Copper Mine, Santa Rita Mountains, Arizona, Coronado National 

Forest. Coronado National Forest, Tucson, AZ. 65pp. 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013b. Comments submitted in response to the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service preliminary, administrative draft Effects analysis for the jaguar. 
362

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Valdez, R., A. Martínez-Mendoza, O.C. Rosas-Rosas. 2002. Componentes históricos y actuales 

del hábitat del jaguar en el noroeste de Sonora, México. Pp. 367-377 in Medellin, R.A., 

C. Equihua, C.L.B. Chetkiewicz, P.G. Crawshaw, Jr., A. Rabinowitz, K.H. Redord, J.G. 

Robinson, E.W. Sanderson, and A.B. Taber, comps. 2002. El jaguar en el nuevo millenio. 

Fondo de Cultura Económica, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Wildlife 

Conservation Society, México. 647pp. 

WestLand Resources, Inc. November 9, 2012. Rosemont Copper Project: Potential Effects of the 

Rosemont Project to Jaguar and Proposed Jaguar Critical Habitat Prepared for: Rosemont 

Copper CompanyWildlife Conservation Society 2007 

Young, A. and G. Clarke. 2000. Genetics, Demography and Viability of Fragmented 

Populations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 

Zarza, H., C. Chávez, and G. Ceballos. 2007. Uso de hábitat del jaguar a escala regional en un 

paisaje dominado por actividades humanas en el sur de la península de Yucatán. Pp 101-

110 in Ceballos, G, C. Chávez, R. List y H. Zarza (editores). 2007. Conservación y 

manejo del jaguar en México: estudios de caso y perspectivas. Conabio - Alianza WWFTelcel – Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. México. 

Zarza, H., C. Chávez, and G. Ceballos. 2010. Asesoría para la coordinación e integración de los 

trabajos realizados sobre las poblaciones de jaguar en México. Instituto de Ecología, 

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. México. 

Zeller, K. 2007. Jaguars in the New Millenium Data Set Update: The State of the Jaguar in 2006. 

Unpublished Report. Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York, USA. 

Pima Pineapple Cactus 

Anable, M.E., M. P. McClaran, and G.B. Ruyle. 1992. Spread of introduced Lehmann lovegrass 

(Eragrostis lehmanniana Nee.) in southern Arizona, USA. Biological Conservation 

61:181-188. 

Baker, M. 2004. Phenetic analysis of Coryphantha, section Robustispina (Cactaceae), part 1: 

stem characters. Final report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under contract 

with the Arizona Board of Regents, University of Arizona, Tucson. 21 pp. 

Baker, M. 2005. Geographic distribution and DNA analysis of Coryphantha robustispina ssp.

robustispina, part 1: geographic distribution. Final report submitted to the Department of 

Agriculture on 7 July 2005. 7 pp. + appendices. 

Baker, M. 2006. 2005 demographic study of Coryphantha robustispina ssp. robustispina. Status 

report prepared for Bureau of Reclamation. 17 pp. 
363

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Baker, M. 2011. A demographic study of Coryphantha robustisipina ssp. robustispina – report to 

BOR. Phoenix Area Office. 51 pp. 

Benson, L. 1982. The Cacti of the United States and Canada. Stanford University Press, 

Stanford, CA. Page 820. 

Brown, D. E. 1982. Biotic communities of the American Southwest – United States and Mexico.

Desert Plants (4)1-4: 1-342. 

Buffelgrass Working Group. 2007. Buffelgrass invasion in the Sonoran Desert: Imminent risks 

and unavoidable mitigation. 4 pp. http://www.buffelgrass.org/pdf/invasion.pdf, accessed 

May 19, 2009. 

Ecosphere Environmental Services Inc. 1992. Final Report: A survey for threatened and 

endangered plant species at three proposed reservoir sites and associated pipelines.

Bureau of Reclamation contract 0-CS-32-1950. Farmington, NM. 69 pp. 

Gori, D. F. and C. A. F. Enquist. 2003. An assessment of the spatial extent and condition of 

grasslands in Central and Southern Arizona, Southwestern New Mexico and Northern 

Mexico. Prepared by the Nature Conservancy, Arizona Chapter. 28 pp.

Johnson, M. B. 2004. Cacti, other succulents, and unusual xerophytes of southern Arizona.

Boyce Thompson Southwestern Arboretum, Superior, AZ. 96 pp. 

McDonald, C. J. 2005. Conservation of the rare Pima pineapple cactus (Coryphantha scheeri var.

robustispina): recruitment after fires and pollination in the Altar Valley of southern 

Arizona. Master of Science Thesis, School of Natural Resource, The University of 

Arizona. 82 pp.

McPherson, G. R. 2002. Relationship of ecological variables in the field with the presence of 

Pima pineapple cactus. Report to USFWS under agreement 1448-20181-01-J818. 4 pp. 

Paredes-Aguilar, R., T. R. Van Devender, and R. S. Felger. 2000. Cactáceas de Sonora, México: 

Su diversidad, uso, y conservación. Instituto del Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo 

Sustenable del Estado de Sonora (IMADES), Hermosillo, Sonora y Arizona-Sonora 

Desert Museum, Tucson, AZ. 143 pp. 

Phillips, A. M. III, B. G. Phillips, and N. Brian. 1981. Status report for Coryphantha scheeri var.

robustispina. Unpublished Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Endangered 

Species, Albuquerque, NM. 

Pima County. 1998. Native Plant Preservation. Chapter 18.72. 

RECON Environmental, Inc. 2006. Draft Pima County Multi-Species Conservation Plan, Pima 

County, Arizona and Attachments. 
364

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Roller, P. S. and W. L. Halvorson. 1997. Fire and Pima pineapple cactus (Coryphantha scheeri 

Kuntze var. robustispina Schott) in southern Arizona. In Proceedings of Fire Effects on 

Rare and Endangered Species and Habitats Conference, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. Pp. 267-

274.

Routson, R., M. Dimmitt, and R. C. Brusca. 2004. A demographic study of Coryphantha scheeri 

var. robustispina. Final report to USFWS. NFWF contract # 2000-0015. 18 pp.

Ruyle, G. B., B. A. Roundy, and J. R. Cox. 1988. Effects of burning on germinability of 

Lehmanns lovegrass. Journal of Range Management 41:404-406.

Schmalzel, R. J., R. T. Nixon, A. L. Best, and J. A. Tress. 2004. Morphometric variation in 

Coryphantha robustispina (Cactaceae). Systematic Botany 29:553-568. 

SWCA, Inc. 2001. September 12, 2001 Technical Memorandum regarding the PPC mitigation 

program at Las Campanas. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Determination of endangered status for the plant PPC 

(Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina). Federal Register 58(158):49875-49880. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Biological Opinion on the Buenos Aires National Wildlife 

Refuge Fire Management Plan for the 2005-2008 Burn Seasons. Arizona Ecological 

Services Office, Phoenix, Arizona. 56 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. 5-year review for Pima pineapple cactus (Coryphantha 

scheeri var. robustispina). Arizona Ecological Services Office, Phoenix, Arizona. 17 pp.

Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/SpeciesDocs/PimaPineappleCactus

/PPC_5yrReview.pdf 

University of Arizona. 2009. Cactus, agave, yucca, and ocotillo. Arizona Cooperative Extension, 

College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Publication AZ1125. Available at: 

http://ag.arizona.edu/pubs/garden/az1225.pdf. 

Vasek, F.C., H.B. Johnson, and D.H. Eslinger. 1975. Effects of pipeline construction on creosote 

bush scrub vegetation of the Mojave Desert. Madroño 23: 1-13.

WestLand Resources, Inc. 2004. January 26, 2004, Technical Memorandum regarding the 

transplanted PPC at the Madera Highland Reserve. 

WestLand Resources, Inc. 2008. May 22, 2008, Technical Memorandum regarding the survival 

of transplanted Pima pineapple cactus on the Sycamore Highland Property. 
365

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Chiricahua Leopard Frog 

Berger L., R. Speare, P. Daszak, D.E. Green, A.A. Cunningham, C.L. Goggins, R. Slocombe, 

M.A. Ragan, A.D. Hyatt, K.R. McDonald, H.B. Hines, K.R. Lips, G. Marantelli, and H. 

Parkes. 1998. Chytridiomycosis causes amphibian mortality associated with population 

declines in the rain forests of Australia and Central America. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Science, USA 95:9031-9036. 

Blaustein, A.R, and P. T. J. Johnson. 2010. When an infection turns lethal. Nature 465:881-882. 

Bradford, D.F. 1989. Allotopic distribution of native frogs and introduced fishes in high Sierra 

Nevada lakes of California; Implications of the negative effect of fish introductions. 

Copeia 1898:775-778. 

Bradford, D.F., F. Tabatabai, and D.M. Graber. 1993. Isolation of remaining ppopulations of the 

native frog, Rana muscosa, by introduced fishes in Sequioa and Kings Canyon national 

Parks, California. Conservation Biology 7(4):882-888. 

Bradley, G.A., P.C. Rosen, M.J. Sredl, T.R. Jones, and J.E. Longcore. 2002. Chytridomycosis in 

native Arizona frogs. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 38(1):206-212. 

Campbell, J.A. 1998. Amphibians and Reptiles of northern Guatemala, the Yucatan, and Belize. 

University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma. 

Carey, C., N. Cohen, and L. Rollins-Smith. 1999. Amphibian declines: an immunological 

perspective. Developmental and Comparative Immunology 23:459-472. 

Carey, C., W.R. Heyer, J. Wilkinson, R.A. Alford, J.W. Arntzen, T. Halliday, L. Hungerford, 

K.R. Lips, E.M. Middleton, S.A. Orchard, and A.S. Rand. 2001. Amphibian declines and 

environmental change: use of remote sensing data to identify environmental correlates. 

Conservation Biology 15(4):903-913. 

Collins, J.P., J.L. Brunner, V. Miera, M.J. Parris, D.M. Schock, and A. Storfer. 2003. Ecology 

and evolution of infectious disease. Pages 137-151 in R.D. Semlitsch, Amphibian 

Conservation. Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C. 

Clarkson, R.W., and J.C. Rorabaugh. 1989. Status of leopard frogs (Rana pipiens Complex) in 

Arizona and southeastern California. Southwestern Naturalist 34(4):531-538. 

Crother, B.I. (ed.). 2008. Scientific and Common Names for Amphibians and Reptiles of North 

America North of México. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, 

Herpetological Circular No. 37:1-84 
366

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Dahms, C.W., and B.W. Geils (tech. eds). 1997. An assessment of forest ecosystem health in the 

Southwest. General Technical Report RM-GTR-295. Fort Collins, CO, US Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 

Danzer, S.R., C.H. Baisan, and T.W. Swetnam. 1997. The influence of fire and land-use history 

on stand dynamics in the Huachuca Mountains of southeastern Arizona. Appendix D in

Robinett, D., R.A. Abolt, and R. Anderson, Fort Huachuca Fire Management Plan.

Report to Fort Huachuca, AZ. 

Daszak, P. 2000. Frog decline and epidemic disease. International Society for Infectious 

Diseases. Http://www.promedmail.org. 

Davidson, C. 1996. Frog and toad calls of the Rocky Mountains. Library of Natural Sounds, 

Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. 

Davidson, D., Pessier, A.P., J.E. Longcore, M. Parris, J. Jancovich, J. Brunner, D. Schock, and 

J.P. Collins. 2000. Chytridiomycosis in Arizona (USA) tiger salamanders. Page 23 in 

Conference and Workshop Compendium: Getting the Jump! On amphibian diseas.

Cairns, Australia, August 2000. 

DeBano, L.F., and D.G. Neary. 1996. Effects of fire on riparian systems. Pages 69-76 in P.F.

Ffolliott, L.F. DeBano, M.B. Baker, G.J. Gottfried, G. Solis-Garza, C.B. Edminster, D.G 

Neary, L.S. Allen, and R.H Hamre (tech. coords.). Effects of fire on Madrean province 

ecosystems, a symposium proceedings. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report 

RM-GTR-289. 

Degenhardt, W.G., C.W. Painter, and A.H. Price. 1996. Amphibians and reptiles of New 

Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 

Diaz, J.V., and G.E.Q. Diaz. 1997. Anfibios y reptiles de Aguascalientes. Grupo Impressor 

Mexico, Aguascalientes, Aguascalientes, MX.

Dole, J.W. 1968. Homing in leopard frogs, Rana pipiens. Ecology 49:386-399.

Dole, J.W. 1971. Dispersal of recently metamorphosed leopard frogs, Rana pipiens. Copeia 

1971:221-228. 

Dole, J.W. 1972. Evidence of celestial orientation in newly-metamorphosed Rana pipiens.

Herpetologica 28:273-276.

Fellers, G.M., D.E. Green, and J.E. Longcore. 2001. Oral chytridiomycosis in the mountain 

yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa). Copeia 2000(4):945-953. 
367

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Fellers, G.M., L.L. McConnell, D. Pratt, and S. Datta. 2004. Pesticides in mountain yellowlegged frogs (Rana muscosa) from the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California, USA.

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 23(9):2170-2177. 

Fellers, G.M., K.L. Pope, J.E. Stead, M.S. Koo, and H.H. Welsh, Jr. 2007. Turning population 

trend monitoring into active conservation: Can we save the Cascades frog (Rana 

cascadae) in the Lassen region of California. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 

3(1):28-39. 

Fernandez, P.J., and J.T. Bagnara. 1995. Recent changes in leopard frog distribution in the White 

Mountains of east central Arizona. Page 4 in abstracts of the First Annual Meeting of the 

Southwestern Working Group of the Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force, 

Phoenix, AZ. 

Fernandez, P.J., and P.C. Rosen. 1996. Effects of the introduced crayfish Oronectes virilis on the 

native aquatic herpetofauna in Arizona. Report to the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, Heritage Program, IIPAM Project No. I94054. 

Fernandez, P.J. and P.C. Rosen. 1998. Effects of introduced crayfish on the Chiricahua leopard 

frog and its stream habitat in the White Mountains, Arizona. Page 5 in abstracts of the 

Fourth Annual Meeting of the Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force, Phoenix, 

AZ. 

Frost, J.S., and J.T. Bagnara. 1977. Sympatry between Rana blairi and the southern form of 

leopard frog in southeastern Arizona (Anura: Ranidae). The Southwestern Naturalist 

22(4):443-453. 

Gingrich, R.W. 2003. The political ecology of deforestation in the Sierra Madre Occidental of 

Chihuahua. Online publication. 

Green, D.E., and C.K. Dodd, Jr. 2007. Presence of amphibian chytrid fungus Batrochochytrium 

dendrobatidis and other amphibian pathogens at warm-water fish hatcheries in 

southeastern North Ameroca. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 2(1):43-47. 

Hale, S.F. 2001. The status of the Tarahumara frog in Sonora, Mexico based on a re-survey of 

selected localities, and search for additional populations. Report to the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Phoenix, Arizona. 

Halliday, T.R. 1998. A declining amphibian conundrum. Nature 394:418-419. 

Jennings, R.D. 1987. The status of Rana berlandieri, the Rio Grande leopard frog, and Rana 

yavapaiensis, the lowland leopard frog, in New Mexico. Report to New Mexico 

Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 
368

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Jennings, R.D. 1995. Investigations of recently viable leopard frog populations in New Mexico: 

Rana chiricahuensis and Rana yavapaiensis. New Mexico Game and Fish Department, 

Santa Fe. 

Knapp, R.A., and K.R. Mathews. 2000. Nonnative fish introductions and the decline of the 

Mountain yellow-legged frog from within protected areas. Conservation Biology 

14(2):428-438. 

Lemos-Espinal, J.A., and H.M. Smith. 2007. Anfibios y Reptiles del Estado de Chihuahua, 

México/Amphibians and Reptiles of the State of Chihuahua, México. Universidad 

Nacional Autonoma de México y CONABIO, México D.F. 

Longcore, J.E., A.P. Pessier, and D.K. Nichols. 1999. Batracytrium dendrobatidis gen. Et sp.

Nov., a chytrid pathogenic to amphibians. Mycologia 91(2):219-227. 

Mazzoni, R., A.A. Cunninghan, P. Daszak, A. Apolo, E. Perdomo, and G. Speranza. 2003.

Emerging pathogen of wild amphibians in frogs (Rana catesbeiana) farmed for 

international trade. Emerging Infectious Diseases 9(8):3-30. 

Morehouse, E.A., T.Y. James, A.R.D. Ganley, R. Vilgalys, L. Berger, P.J. Murphys, and J.E.

Longcore. 2003. Multilocus sequence typing suggests the chytrid pathogen of amphibians 

is a recently emerged clone. Molecular Ecology 12:395-403. 

Morell, V. 1999. Are pathogens felling frogs? Science 284:728-731. 

Painter, C.W. 2000. Status of listed and category herpetofauna. Report to US Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Albuquerque, NM. Completion report for E-31/1-5. 

Picco, A.M., and J.P. Collins. 2008. Amphibian commerce as a likely source of pathogen 

pollution. Conservation Biology 22(6):1582-1589. 

Platz, J.E., and J.S. Mecham. 1979. Rana chiricahuensis, a new species of leopard frog (Rana 

pipiens Complex) from Arizona. Copeia 1979(3):383-390. 

Platz, J.E., and J.S. Mecham. 1984. Rana chiricahuensis. Catalogue of American Amphibians 

and Reptiles 347.1. 

Pounds, J.A., and M.L. Crump. 1994. Amphibian declines and climate disturbance: the case of 

the golden toad and the harlequin frog. Conservation Biology 8(1)72-85. 

Reaser, J.K., and D.S. Pilliod. 2005. Rana luteiventris Thompson 1913. Columbia spotted frog.

Pp. 559-563 in M.J. Lannoo (ed), Amphibian Declines: The Conservation Status of 

United States Species. University of California Press, Berkeley. 
369

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Rorabaugh, J.C. 2005. Rana berlandieri Baird, 1854(a), Rio Grande leopard frog. Pages 530-532 

in M.J. Lannoo (ed), Amphibian Declines: The Conservation Status of United States 

Species. University of California Press, Berkeley. 

Rorabaugh, J.C. 2008. An introduction to the herpetofauna of mainland Sonora, México, with 

comments on conservation and management. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of 

Science 40(1):20-65. 

Rosen, P.C., and C. Melendez. 2006. Observations on the status of aquatic turtles and ranid frogs 

in northwestern Mexico. Pp. 104-106 in Extended Abstracts, Proceedings of the Sizth 

Conference on Research and Resource Management in the Southwestern Deserts. USGS 

Southwest Biological Science Center, Sonoran Desert Research Station, Tucson, AZ.

Rosen, P.C., and C.R. Schwalbe. 1998. Using managed waters for conservation of threatened 

frogs. Pages 180-202 in Proceedings of Symposium on Environmental, Economic, and 

Legal Issues Related to Rangeland Water Developments. November 13-15, 1997, Tempe, 

AZ. 

Rosen, P.C., C.R. Schwalbe, D.A. Parizek, P.A. Holm, and C.H. Lowe. 1994. Introduced aquatic 

vertebrates in the Chiricahua region: effects on declining native ranid frogs. Pages 251-

261 in L.F. DeBano, G.J. Gottfried, R.H. Hamre, C.B. Edminster, P.F. Ffolliott, and A.

Ortega-Rubio (tech. coords.), Biodiversity and management of the Madrean Archipelago.

USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-GTR-264.

Rosen, P.C., C.R. Schwalbe, and S.S. Sartorius. 1996. Decline of the Chiricahua leopard frog in 

Arizona mediated by introduced species. Report to Heritage program, Arizona Game and 

Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. IIPAM Project No. I92052. 

Seburn, C.N.L., D.C. Seburn, and C.A. Paszkowski. 1997. Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) 

dispersal in relation to habitat. Herpetological Conservation 1:64-72. 

Sinsch, U. 1991. Mini-review: the orientation behaviour of amphibians. Herpetological Journal 

1:541-544.

Skerratt, L.F., L. Berger, and R. Speare. 2007. Natural history of Bd. Abstract in Program for the 

Conference, Amphibian Declines and Chytridomycosis: Translating Science into Urgent 

Action, Tempe, AZ. 

Snyder, J., T. Maret, and J.P. Collins. 1996. Exotic species and the distribution of native 

amphibians in the San Rafael Valley, AZ. Page 6 in abstracts of the Second Annual 

Meeting of the Southwestern United States Working Group of the Declining Amphibian 

Populations Task Force, Tucson, AZ. 
370

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Speare, R., and L. Berger. 2000. Global distribution of chytridiomycosis in amphibians.

Http://www.jcu.edu.au/school/phtm/PHTM/frogs/chyglob.htm.11 November 2000. 

Sredl, M.J., and D. Caldwell. 2000. Wintertime populations surveys - call for volunteers. 

Sonoran Herpetologist 13:1. 

Sredl, M.J., and J.M. Howland. 1994. Conservation and management of Madrean populations of 

the Chiricahua leopard frog, Rana chiricahuensis. Arizona Game and Fish Department, 

Nongame Branch, Phoenix, AZ. 

Sredl, M.J., J.M. Howland, J.E. Wallace, and L.S. Saylor. 1997. Status and distribution of 

Arizona's native ranid frogs. Pages 45-101 in M.J. Sredl (ed). Ranid frog conservation 

and management. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Nongame and Endangered 

Wildlife Program, Technical Report 121. 

Sredl, M.J., and R.D. Jennings. 2005. Rana chiricahuensis: Chiricahua leopard frogs. Pages 546-

549 in M.J. Lannoo (ed), Amphibian Declines: The Conservation Status of United States 

Species. University of California Press, Berkeley. 

Stebbins, R.C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin 

Company, Boston, MA. 

Swetnam, T.W., and C.H. Baisan. 1996. Fire histories of montane forests in the Madrean 

Borderlands. Pages 15-36 in P.F. Ffolliott et al. (Tech. Coord.), Effects of fire on 

Madrean Province ecosystems. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report, RMGTR-289.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2007. Chiricahua leopard frog (Rana chiricahuensis) 

recovery plan. Region 2, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2009. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 

partial 90-day finding on a petition to list 475 species in the Southwestern United States 

as threatened or endangered with critical habitat; proposed rule. Federal Register 

74(240):66866-66905. 

Vredenburg, V., G.M. Fellers, and C. Davidson. 2005. Rana muscosa Camp 1917b. Mountain 

yellow-legged frog. Pp. 563-566 in M.J. Lannoo (ed), Amphibian Declines: The 

Conservation Status of United States Species. University of California Press, Berkeley. 

Vredenburg, V. T., Knapp, R. A., Tunstall, T. S. & Briggs, C. J. 2010. Dynamics of an emerging 

disease drive large-scale amphibian population extinctions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 

107:9689–9694. 
371

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Wallace, E. 2003. Status assessment of lowland leopard frogs in mountains of Coronado 

National Forest – Santa Catalina Ranger District. Purchase Order 43-8197-3-0058.

Coronado national Forest, Tucson, AZ. 

Weldon, C., L.H. du Preez, A.D. Hyatt, R. Muller, and R. Speare. 2004. Origin of the amphibian 

chytrid fungus. Emerging Infectious Diseases 10(12):3-8.

Witte, C.L., M.J. Sredl, A.S. Kane, and L.L. Hungerford. 2008. Epidemiological analysis of 

factors associated with local disappearances of native ranid frogs in Arizona.

Conservation Biology 22:375-383.

Effects to Aquatic Ecosystems 

Barlow, P.M., and S.A. Leake. 2012. Streamflow depletion by wells—Understanding and 

managing the effects of groundwater pumping on streamflow: U.S. Geological Survey 

Circular 1376, 84 p. 

Bodner, G. and K. Simms. 2008. State of the Las Ciénegas NCA, Part III: Condition of Riparian 

Habitats and Channel Geomorphology. The Nature Conservancy in Arizona and the 

Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona. 69 pp.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2013. Agency Review of the Internal Working Draft of the 

Rosemont Copper Company Draft Biological Opinion. 8 pp. 

Cosgrove, D.M. and G.S. Johnson. 2005. Aquifer Management Zones Based on Simulated 

Surface-Water Response Functions. Journal of Water Resources Planning and 

Management. 131(2): 89-100.

Huth, H. 1996. Personal Communication with E.L. Knight, Cienega Creek Group Thesis 

Practicum, Department of Hydrology and Water Resources, University of Arizona, 

Tucson, Arizona 

Knight, E.L. 1996. A water budget and land management recommendations for upper Cienega 

Creek basin. Master’s Thesis, University of Arizona, Department of Hydrology and 

Water Resources. 119 pp. 

Leake, S.A. 2011. Capture—Rates and Directions of Groundwater Flow Don’t Matter! Ground 

Water 49(4): 456-458. 

Leake, S.A., D.R. Pool, and J.M. Leenhouts. 2008, Simulated effects of ground-water 

withdrawals and artificial recharge on discharge to streams, springs, and riparian 

vegetation in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed of the Upper San Pedro Basin, southeastern 

Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5207, 14 p. 
372

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Montgomery and Associates Inc. 2010. Revised Report: Groundwater Flow Modeling Conducted 

for Simulation of Proposed Rosemont Pit Dewatering and Post-closure, Vol. 1: Text and 

Tables. Prepared for Rosemont Copper. Tucson, Arizona: Montgomery and Associates 

Inc. August 30. 

Myers, T. 2010. Technical Memorandum: Updated Groundwater Modeling Report Proposed 

Rosemont Open Pit Mining Project. Prepared for Pima County and Pima County 

Regional Flood Control District. Reno, Nevada. April 21. 

Pima County. 2012. Agency Review of the Internal Working Draft of the Rosemont Copper 

Project DEIS: Special Expertise Required Comment Form. 9 pp. 

Pima County. 2013. GIS Layer: Riparian Habitat/IRA Underlaying Classifications MapGuide. 

Tucson, 40 Arizona: Pima County Information Technology Department. 

Poff, B., K.A. Koestner, D.G. Neary, and V. Henderson. 2011. Threats to riparian ecosystems in 

western North America: An analysis of existing literature. Journal of the American Water 

2 Resources Association 47(6):1241–1254.

Port, P.S. 2012. United States Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary, Office of 

Environmental Policy and Compliance Comments on the Draft EIS, US Forest Service, 

Rosemont Copper Project, Proposed Construction, Operation with Concurrent 

Reclamation and Closure of an Open-Pit Copper Mine, Coronado National Forest, Pima 

County, AZ. 12 pp. 

Propst. L. 2012. Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Rosemont 

Mine Plan of Operations. Letter from Jim Upchurch, Coronado National Forest 

Supervisor. 16 pp, plus Postscript. 

SRK Consulting. 2012. Memorandum to Chris Garrett of SWCA regarding Pt. 3 SWCA 

Questions 1 through 3 - Professional Opinions to Assess Impacts to Distant Surface 

Waters and Modeling Certainty. Pp 22-28 in SWCA, Presentation made to U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Forest Service to Convey Detailed Information Regarding the 

Seeps, Springs, and Riparian Impacts Analysis in the Rosemont EIS, in order to inform 

the USFWS Section 7 consultation process.

SWCA. 2012. Presentation made to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Forest Service to Convey 

Detailed Information Regarding the Seeps, Springs, and Riparian Impacts Analysis in the 

Rosemont EIS, in order to inform the USFWS Section 7 consultation process. November 

12, 2012. 65 pp. 

Tetra Tech. 2010. Regional Groundwater Flow Model, Rosemont Copper Project. Tetra Tech 

Project No,. 114-320874. Prepared for Rosemont Copper. Tucson, Arizona. November. 
373

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2011a. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont 

Copper Project. A Proposed Mining Operation in Coronado National Forest, Pima 

County, Arizona: U.S. Forest Service, Southwestern Region. September. 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2012. Letter from Jim Upchurch, Coronado National Forest 

Supervisor to Jean Calhoun, Arizona Ecological Services Office Assistant Field 

Supervisor Documenting the Conclusions of an October 18, 2012, groundwater modeling 

forum. 2 pp. 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013a. Supplement to the Biological Assessment, Proposed 

Rosemont Copper Mine, Santa Rita Mountains, Pima County, Arizona, Nogales Ranger 

District. February. 65 pp. 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013b. Transmittal of Comments on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Preliminary Draft Effects to Aquatic Ecosystems, Effects to Riparian 

Ecosystems, and Effects to the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher sections. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1997. Modeling Ground-Water Flow with MODFLOW and 

Related Programs. USGS Fact Sheet FS-121-97. 4 pp. 

Gila Chub 

Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. 1994. Report to Congress: Findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations of the intentional introductions policy review. 

Arthington, A. H., S. Hamlet, and D. R. Bluhdorn. 1990. The role of habitat disturbance in the 

establishment of introduced warm-water fishes in Australia. Pages 61-66 in Pollard, D. 

A., ed., Proceedings Australian Society for Fish Biology, Workshop on Introduced and 

Translocated Fishes and their Ecological Effects, Bureau of Rural Resources Proc. No. 8. 

Bagley, B. E. 2002. Survey of Verde River drainage, Arizona, for loach minnow (Tiaroga 

cobitis). Final Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services 

Office, Contract No. 22410-0-M525, Phoenix, AZ. 

Bagley, B. E., D. A. Hendrickson, F. J. Abarca, and S. D. Hart. 1991. Status of the Sonoran 

topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis) and desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius) in 

Arizona. Report on Project E5-2, Job 9, Title VI of the ESA, AGFD, Phoenix, AZ. 64pp.

Bahre, C. J. 1991. A legacy of change: Historic land use and vegetation in the Arizona 

borderlands. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. 231pp. 

Bahre, C. J., and C. F. Hutchinson. 1985. The impact of historic fuelwood cutting on the 

semidesert woodlands of southeastern Arizona. J. Forest History Oct.:175-186. 
374

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Belsky, A. J. 1986. Does herbivory benefit plants? A review of the evidence. American 

Naturalist 127(6):870-892. 

Belsky, A. J., and D. M. Blumenthal. 1997. Effects of livestock grazing on stand dynamics and 

soils in upland forests of the interior west. Conservation Biology 11(2):315-327.

Bestgen, K. R. 1985. Distribution, biology and status of the roundtail chub, Gila robusta, in the 

Gila River basin, New Mexico. MS Thesis, Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO.

104pp.

Bodner, G., J. Simms, and D. Gori. 2007. State of the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area: 

Gila Topminnow population status and trends 1989–2005. The Nature Conservancy, 

Tucson, AZ. 

Bodner, G., and K. Simms. 2008. State of the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area; Part 3: 

Condition and trend of riparian target species, vegetation and channel geomorphology.

The Nature Conservancy, Tucson, Arizona, and Bureau of Land Management, Tucson 

Field Office, Tucson, AZ.

Bogan, M.T., and D.A. Lytle. 2011. Severe drought drives novel community trajectories in 

desert stream pools. Freshwater Biology 56(10):2070–2081. 

Bonar, S. A., C. J. Carveth, A. M. Widmer, and J. Simms. 2005. Upper temperature tolerance of 

loach minnow and spikedace under acute, chronic, and fluctuating thermal regimes.

Fisheries research report 04-05, Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, 

U.S. Geological Survey, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. 58pp. 

Bota, L. 1996. Modeling of groundwater flow and surface/groundwater interaction for upper 

Cienega Creek Basin. MS. Thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. 

Bozek, M. A., and M. K. Young. 1994. Fish mortality resulting from delayed effects of fire in 

the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Great Basin Naturalist 54:91-95.

Brown, D. E., C. H. Lowe, and J. F. Hausler. 1977. Southwestern riparian communities: their 

biotic importance and management in Arizona. Johnson, R. R., and D.A. Jones, eds., 

Importance, Preservation, and Management of Riparian Habitats: a Symposium. USDA 

Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. Rm-43, Rocky Mt. Forest and Range Experiment 

Station, Denver, CO. 

Brown, D. K., A. A. Echelle, D. L. Propst, J. E. Brooks, and W. L. Fisher. 2001. Catastrophic 

wildfire and number of populations as factors influencing risk of extinction for Gila trout 

(Oncorhynchus gilae). Western North American Naturalist 61:139–148.

Brown, D. P., and A. C. Comrie. 2004. A winter precipitation 'dipole' in the western United 

States associated with multidecadal ENSO variability. Geophysical Research Letters 31. 
375

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Brown, T. J., B. L. Hall, and A. L. Westerling. 2004. The impact of twenty-first century climate 

change on wildlife fire danger in the western United States: An applications perspective.

Climatic Change 62:365-388.

Bryan, K. 1925. Date of channel trenching (arroyo cutting) in the arid southwest. Science 

62:338-344. 

Burns, D. C. 1991. Cumulative effect of small modifications to habitat. Fisheries 16:12–17. 

Caldwell, D., D. Hall, and P. Rosen. 2011. F.R.O.G. Project, Las Cienegas National 

Conservation Area. Regional Enhancement Work Sites Evaluation Proposal for 

Conservation of Native Aquatic Vertebrates. Review Draft. March. 

California Department of Water Resources. 2008. Water and Border Area Climate Change: An 

Introduction. Special report prepared for the 26th Border Governors Conference.

Sacramento, California: California Department of Water Resources. July. 

Carlson, C. A., and R. T. Muth. 1989. The Colorado River: lifeline of the American Southwest.

Pages 220-239 in Dodge, D.P., ed., Proceedings of the International Large River 

symposium, Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 106. 

Carveth, C. J., A. M. Widmar, and S. A. Bonar. 2006. Comparisons of upper thermal tolerances 

of native and nonnative fish in Arizona. Trans. American Fisheries Soc. 135(6):1433–

1440.

Christensen, N. S., A. W. Wood, N. Voisin, D. P. Lettenmaier, and R. N. Palmer. 2004. The 

effects of climate change on the hydrology and water resources of the Colorado River 

Basin. Climatic Change 62:337–363. 

City of Tucson and Pima County, Arizona. 2009. Chuck Huckelberry and Mike Letcher, 

Riparian Protection Technical Paper, Water and Wastewater Infrastructure, Supply and 

Planning Study, Phase II. Prepared for City/County Waste and Wastewater Study 

Oversight Committee. 

Claudi, R., and J. H. Leach. 2000. Nonindigenous freshwater organisms. Vectors, biology, and 

impacts. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. 464 pp.

CLIMAS. 2013. Southwest climate outlook, March 27, 2013. Climate Assessment for the 

Southwest (CLIMAS) project, the University of Arizona Cooperative Extension, and the 

Arizona State Climate Office, 2(3)1-18. 

Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study Team. 2011. Reclamation: Managing 

Water in the West. Interim Report No. 1; Colorado River Basin Water Supply and 

Demand Study. Technical Report C - Water Demand Assessment. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. June. 
376

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Cooper, C. F. 1960. Changes in vegetation, structure and growth of Southwestern pine forests 

since white settlement. Ecological Monographs 30: 129-164. 

Courtenay, W. R., Jr. 1993. Biological pollution through fish introductions. Pages 35-61 in B. N.

McKnight, ed., Biological Pollution, The Control and Impact of Invasive Exotic Species, 

Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis. 

Courtenay, W. R., Jr., and J. R. Stauffer. 1984. Distribution, biology and management of exotic 

fishes. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 

Cushing, C. E., Jr., and P. A. Olson. 1963. Effects of weed burning on stream conditions. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 92:303–305. 

Davies, B. R., M. Thoms, and M. R. Meador. 1992. An assessment of the ecological impacts of 

inter-basin water transfers, and their threats to river basin integrity and conservation.

Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 2:235-349. 

Davis, G. P., Jr. 1982. Man and wildlife in Arizona: The American exploration period 1824-

1865. Carmony, N. B., and D. E. Brown, eds., Ariz. Game and Fish Dept. and Ariz.

Coop. Wildl. Res. Unit, Somers Graphics, Inc., Scottsdale. 232pp.

de la Torre, A. C. 1970. Streamflow in the upper Santa Cruz River basin, Santa Cruz and Pima 

Counties, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey, City of Tucson, Univ. of Ariz., Geol. Surv.

Supply Paper 1939-A. U.S. Gov. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 26pp. + 6 maps. 

Deacon, J. E., C. Hubbs, and B. J. Zahuranec. 1964. Some effects of introduced fishes on the 

native fish fauna of southern Nevada. Copeia 1964(2):384-388. 

DeMarais, B. D. 1986. Morphological variation in Gila (Pisces: Cyprinidae) and geologic 

history: Lower Colorado River basin. MS Thesis, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.

85pp.

DeMarais, B. D. 1995. Taxonomic history and status of the Gila chub, Gila intermedia (Girard).

A Report to Arizona Game and Fish Department. 

Desert Fishes Team. 2003. Status of federal and state listed warm water fishes of the Gila River 

basin, with recommendations for management. Desert Fishes Team Report 1, Phoenix, 

AZ. 

Desert Fishes Team. 2006. Analysis of recovery plan implementation for threatened and 

endangered warm water fishes of the Gila River basin. Desert Fishes Team Report 3, 

Phoenix, AZ. 
377

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Dobyns, H. R. 1981. From fire to flood: Historic human destruction of Sonoran Desert riverine 

oases. Ballena Press, Anthropological Papers No. 20. 222pp.

Duce, J. T. 1918. The effect of cattle on the erosion of cañon bottoms. Science 47:450–452. 

Dudley, R. K., and W. J. Matter. 2000. Effects of small green sunfish (Lepomis cyanella) on 

recruitment of Gila chub (Gila intermedia) in Sabino Creek, Arizona. Southwestern 

Naturalist 45(1):24-29. 

Duncan, D., and G. Garfin. 2006. Native fish conservation and climate variability in southeastern 

Arizona. Pages 41-43 in Halvorson, B., ed., Borders, Boundaries, and Time Scales: 

Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Research and Resource Management in the 

Southwestern Deserts; Extended Abstracts, U.S. Geological Survey, Southwest 

Biological Science Center, Sonoran Desert Research Station, Tucson, AZ. 

Eddy, F. W., and M. E. Cooley. 1983. Cultural and environmental history of Cienega Valley, 

southeastern Arizona. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. 60 pp. 

Ehret, S., and J. Simms. n.d. [2009]. Gila chub Monitoring in Cienega Creek in 2005, 2007, and 

2008 with notes on Gila topminnow, longfin dace, Sonoran mud turtle, and Huachuca 

water umbel. Arizona Game and Fish Department and Bureau of Land Management, 

Tucson, AZ. 

Fisheries and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 1998. Database on introductions of aquatic 

species. U. N. Environment Programme.

Http://www.fao.org/fi/statist/fishoft/dias/mainpage.htm. 

Fleischner, T. L. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North America. 

Conservation Biology 8(3):629-644. 

Fonseca, J. 2008. Aquifer monitoring for groundwater-dependent ecosystems, Pima County, 

Arizona. Office of Conservation Science, Pima County Natural Resources, Parks and 

Recreation, Tucson, Arizona. 38pp. 

Garfin, G. 2005. Climate change in the Colorado River Basin. Pages 36-44 in Colorado River 

Basin Climate: Paleo, Present, Future, at 

http://wwa.colorado.edu/resources/colorado_river/Colorado_River_Basin_Climate.pdf 

Gilbert, C. H., and N. B. Scofield. 1898. Notes on a collection of fishes from the Colorado Basin 

in Arizona. Proc. U.S. National Museum 20:487 499. 

Gray, S. T., J. L. Betancourt, C. L. Fastie, and S. T. Jackson. 2003. Patterns and sources of 

multidecadal oscillations in drought-sensitive tree-ring records from the central and 

southern Rocky Mountains. Geophysical Research Letters 30:10.1029/2002GL016154. 
378

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Gresswell, R. E. 1999. Fire and aquatic ecosystems in forested biomes of North America.

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 128:193–221.

Griffith, J. S., and T. R. Tiersch. 1989. Ecology of fishes in Redfield Canyon, Arizona, with 

emphasis on Gila robusta intermedia. The Southwestern Naturalist 34:131-134.

Haddock, P. L. 1980. Compendium of water projects: Lower Colorado River basin. (Preliminary 

edition, excluding the Salton Sea basin). Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

Haney, J., M. Robles, D. Majka, and R. MarshalL. 2009. Sustaining river flows in the face of 

growing water demands in Arizona. The Nature Conservancy Center for Science and 

Public Policy, Tucson, AZ. 11pp. 

Hanson, R., and E. Brott. 2005. Citizens' council protecting Sky Island wildlife corridor. Pages 

392-395 in Gottfreid, G. J., B. S. Gebow, L. G. Eskew, and C. B. Edminster, comps., 

Connecting Mountain Islands and Desert Seas: Biodiversity and Management of the 

Madrean Archipelago II. USDA Forest Service, RMRS-P-36, Rocky Mtn. Res. Stn., Ft.

Collins, CO. 631pp. 

Hastings, J. R., and R. M. Turner. 1965. The changing mile. Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. 

Hedrick, P. W., T. Kim, and K. M. Parker. 2001a. Parasite resistance and genetic variation in the 

endangered Gila topminnow. Anim. Cons. 4: 103-109.

Hedrick, P. W., and K. M. Parker. 1998. MHC variation in the endangered Gila topminnow.

Evolution 52(1):194-199.

Hedrick, P. W., K. M. Parker, and R. N. Lee. 2001b. Using microsatellite and MHC variation to 

identify species, ESUs, and MUs in the endangered Sonoran topminnow. Molec. Ecol.

10: 1399-1412. 

Hendrickson, D. A., and W. L. Minckley. 1984. Cienegas — vanishing climax communities of 

the American southwest. Desert Plants 6(3):131-175.

Hereford, R. 1993. Geomorphic evolution of the San Pedro River channel since 1900 in the San 

Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, southeast Arizona. USDI, Geological 

Survey, Open File Report 92-339. 71pp. 

Hereford, R., R. H. Webb, and S. Graham. 2002. Precipitation history of the Colorado Plateau 

Region, 1900-2000. USGS Fact Sheet 119-02 (http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/ factsheet/fs119-02/). 

Hoerling, M., and J. Eischeid. 2007. Past peak water in the southwest. Southwest Hydrology 

January/February 2007:18–35.
379

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Humphrey, R. R. 1987. 90 years and 535 miles. Vegetation changes along the Mexican border.

University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 448pp. 

Huth, H. 1996. Personal Communication with E.L. Knight, Cienega Creek Group Thesis 

Practicum, Department of Hydrology and Water Resources, University of Arizona, 

Tucson, Arizona. 

Hynes, H. B. N. 1970. The ecology of running waters. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

555pp.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Climate change 2001: The scientific 

basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the third assessment report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Houghton, J. T.,Y. Ding, D. J. Griggs, M.

Noguer, P. J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C. A. Johnson, eds., Cambridge 

Univ. Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate change 2007: The physical 

science basis summary for policymakers. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC Secretariat, 

Geneva, Switzerland, http://www.ipcc.ch 

Jacobs, K. L., G. M. Garfin, and B. J. Morehouse. 2005. Climate science and drought planning: 

The Arizona experience. J. of the American Water Resources Association 41:437-445.

Jordan, D. S. and B. W. Evermann. 1896. The fishes of North and Middle America. Part 1.

Bulletin U.S. National Museum, 47:1-1240.

Kauffman, J. B., and W. C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian plant communities and 

streamside management implications...a review. Journal of Range Management 37(5): 

430-438.

Kesner, B. R., and P. C. Marsh. 2010. Central Arizona Project fish monitoring, final report: 

analysis of fish population monitoring data for selected waters of the Gila River Basin, 

Arizona, for the five‐year period 2005‐2009. Agreement No. R09PD32013, Submitted to 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Glendale, AZ, Marsh and Associates, LLC, Tempe, AZ. 

Kitzberger, T., P. M. Brown, E. K. Heyerdahl, T. W. Swetnam, and T. T. Veblen. 2006.

Contingent Pacific-Atlantic Ocean influence on multicentury wildfire synchrony over 

western North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, published 

online Dec 29, 2006. 

Knight, E. L. 1996. A water budget and land management recommendations for upper Cienega 

Creek basin. MS Thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. 119pp. 
380

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Kundzewicz, Z. W., L. J. Mata, N. W. Arnell, P. Döll, P. Kabat, B. Jiménez, K.A. Miller, T. Oki, 

Z. Sen and I. A. Shiklomanov. 2007. Freshwater resources and their management. Pages 

173–210 in Parry, M. L., O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, and C. E.

Hanson, eds., Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution 

of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 

Lenart, M. 2007. Global Warming in the Southwest: Projections, Observations and Impacts.

Tucson, Arizona: The Climate Assessment Project for the Southwest (CLIMAS) Institute 

for the Study of Planet Earth, the University of Arizona. April. 

Leopold, A. 1921. A plea for recognition of artificial works in forest erosion control policy.

Journal of Forestry 19:267 273.

Leopold, A. 1924. Grass, brush, timber, and fire in southern Arizona. J. Forestry 22:1 10. 

Leopold, A. 1946. Erosion as a menace to the social and economic future of the Southwest. A 

paper read to the New Mexico Association for Science, 1922. J. of Forestry 44:627 633. 

Leopold, L. B. 1997. Water, rivers and creeks. Univ. Sci. Books, Sausalito, California, 185pp. 

Logan, M. F. 2002. The lessening stream: an environmental history of the Santa Cruz, River.

University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. 311pp. 

Lytle, D. A. 2000. Biotic and abiotic effects of flash flooding in a montane desert stream.

Archive fur Hydrobiologia 150:85–100.

MacDonald, G.M. 2010. Water, climate change, and sustainability in the southwest. Proceedings 

of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States 107(50):21256–21262. 

MacKenzie, D., Z. Gedalof, D. L. Peterson, and P. Mote. 2004. Climatic change, wildlife, and 

conservation. Conservation Biology 18(4):890-902.

Madany, M. H., and N .E. West. 1983. Livestock grazing – fire regime interactions with in 

montane forests for Zion National Park, Utah. Ecology 64:661–667. 

Marsh, P. C., and W. L. Minckley. 1982. Fishes of the Phoenix metropolitan area in central 

Arizona. North American J. Fisheries Management 4:395-402.

Marsh, P. C., and B. R. Kesner. 2011. Central Arizona Project fish monitoring, final annual 

report: summary of sample year 2010 fish surveys in behalf of a long‐term monitoring 

plan for fish populations in selected waters of the Gila River Basin, Arizona. Agreement 

No. R09PD32013, Submitted to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Glendale, Arizona, Marsh 

and Associates, LLC, Tempe, AZ. 
381

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Martin, S. C. 1975. Ecology and management of southwestern semidesert grass-shrub ranges: 

The status of our knowledge. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mtn. For. & Range Exp. Stn., 

Fort Collins, CO. 39pp.

McCabe, G. J., M. A. Palecki, and J. L. Betancourt. 2004. Pacific and Atlantic Ocean influences 

on multidecadal drought frequency in the United States. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences 101(12):4136-4141. 

McCullough, D. A. 1999. A review and synthesis of effects of alterations to the water 

temperature regime on freshwater life stages of salmonids, with special reference to 

Chinook salmon. EPA 910-R-99-010, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, 

Washington.

McKenzie, D., Z. Gedalof, D. L. Peterson, and P. Mote. 2004. Climatic change, wildfire, and 

conservation. Conservation Biology 18:890–902. 

Meador, M. R. 1992. Inter-basin water transfer: Ecological concerns. Fisheries 17(2):17-22. 

Meador, M. R. 1996. Water transfer projects and the role of fisheries biologists. Fisheries 

21(9):18-23. 

Meador M. R., L. R. Brown, and T. Short. 2003. Relations between introduced fish and 

environmental conditions at large geographic scales. Ecological Indicators 3:81–92. 

Meehan, W. R., and W. S. Platts. 1978. Livestock grazing and the aquatic environment. Journal 

of Soil and Water Conservation 33:274–278.

Meffe, G. K. 1985. Predation and species replacement in American Southwestern stream fishes: 

A case study. Southwest Nat. 30:173-187. 

Meffe, G. K., D. A. Hendrickson, W. L. Minckley, and J. N. Rinne. 1983. Factors resulting in 

decline of the endangered Sonoran topminnow Poeciliopsis occidentalis (Atheriniformes: 

Poeciliidae) in the United States. Biological Conservation 25:135-159. 

Meisner, J. D. 1990. Potential loss of thermal habitat for brook trout, due to climatic warming, in 

two southern Ontario streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 119:282–

291.

Miller, R. R. 1945. A new cyprinid fish from southern Arizona, and Sonora, Mexico, with the 

description of a new subgenus of Gila and a review of related species. Copeia 1945 (no.

2): 104-110, Pl. 1.

Miller, R. R. 1946. Gila cypha, a remarkable new species of cyprinid fish from the lower 

Colorado River basin, Arizona. Journal Washington Academy Science, 36: 206-212. 
382

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Miller, R. R. 1950. Notes on the cutthroat and rainbow trouts with the description of a new 

species from the Gila River, New Mexico. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology, 

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 529:1-43.

Miller, R. R. 1961. Man and the changing fish fauna of the American Southwest. Pap. Michigan 

Acad. Sci., Arts, Lett. 46:365-404.

Miller, R. R., and C. H. Lowe. 1967. Fishes of Arizona, Part 2. Pages 133-151 in Lowe, C. H., 

ed., The Vertebrates of Arizona, 2d printing, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. 

Miller, R. R., J. D. Williams, and J. E. Williams. 1989. Extinctions of North American fishes 

during the past century. Fisheries 14:22 38. 

Minckley, W.L. 1969. Aquatic biota of the Bonita Creek Basin, Santa Cruz County, Arizona.

The Nature Conservancy, Ecological Studies Leaflet, 15:1-8.

Minckley, W. L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Ariz. Fish and Game Dept. Sims Printing Company, 

Inc., Phoenix, AZ. 293pp. 

Minckley, W. L. 1985. Native fishes and natural aquatic habitats in U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Region II west of the Continental Divide. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Albuquerque, New Mexico, Department of Zoology, Ariz. State Univ., Tempe, AZ. 

158pp.

Minckley, W. L. 1999. Ecological review and management recommendations for recovery of the 

endangered Gila topminnow. Great Basin Naturalist 59(3): 230-244.

Minckley, W. L., and J. E. Deacon. 1991. Battle against extinction: Native fish management in 

the American west. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. 517pp. 

Minckley, W. L., and B. D. DeMarais. 2000. Taxonomy of chubs (Teleostei, Cyprinidae, Genus 

Gila) in the American Southwest with comments on conservation. Copeia 2000(1):251-

256.

Minckley, W. L., and P. C. Marsh. 2009. Inland fishes of the greater Southwest, chronicle of a 

vanishing biota. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona. 

Minckley, W. L., and G. K. Meffe. 1987. Differential selection by flooding in stream fish 

communities of the arid American Southwest. Pages 93- 104 in Matthews W. J,. and D.

C. Heins, eds., Community and Evolutionary Ecology of North American Stream Fishes, 

University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. 

Minckley, W. L., J. N. Rinne, and J. E. Johnson. 1977. Status of the Gila topminnow and its cooccurrence with mosquitofish. USDA Forest Service, Research Paper RM-198, Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft. Collins, CO. 8pp.
383

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Minshall, G. W., J. T. Brock, and J.D. Varley. 1989. Wildfires and Yellowstone's stream 

ecosystems. BioScience 39:707-715. 

Molles, M. C. Jr. 1985. Recovery of a stream invertebrate community from a flash flood in 

Tesuque Creek, New Mexico. Southwestern Naturalist 30:279–287. 

Montgomery and Associates Inc. 2010. Revised report: groundwater flow modeling conducted 

for simulation of proposed Rosemont Pit dewatering and post-closure, vol. 1: text and 

tables. Prepared for Rosemont Copper, Tucson, Arizona.

Moore, R. H., R. A. Garrett, and P. J. Wingate. 1976. Occurrence of the red shiner, Notropis 

lutrensis, in North Carolina: A probable aquarium release. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.

105(2):220-221. 

Moyle, P. B. 1976a. Fish introductions in California: history and impact on native fishes. 

Biological Conservation 9:101-118.

Moyle, P. B. 1976a. Inland fishes of California. Univ. California Press, Berkeley, California.

405pp.

Moyle, P. B., H. W. Li, and B. A. Barton. 1986. The Frankenstein effect: impact of introduced 

fishes on native fishes in North America. Pages 415-426 in Stroud, R. H., ed., Fish 

Culture in Fisheries Management, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 

Myers, T. 2010. Technical Memorandum: updated groundwater modeling report proposed 

Rosemont open pit mining project. Prepared for Pima County and Pima County Regional 

Flood Control District, Reno, Nevada. 

Naiman, R. J., and D. L. Soltz, eds. 1981. Fishes in North American deserts. John Wiley & Sons, 

New York. 

Nash, L. L., and P. H. Gleick. 1993. The Colorado River Basin and climatic change. EPA 230-R93-009, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning, and 

Evaluation, Climate Change Division. Oakland, California. 

Nelson, B. 1993. Spawning characteristics of Gila chub (Gila intermedia) in Cienega Creek, 

Pima County, Arizona. Report for USDI Bureau of Land Management, Tucson Resource 

Area, Tucson, Arizona. 

Ohmart, R. D. 1996. Historical and present impacts of livestock grazing on fish and wildlife 

resources in western riparian habitats. Society for Range Management, Denver, CO. 245-

279pp.
384

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. 2008. Quitobaquito berm stabilization chronological 

summary, project field activities April-May 2008. U.S. National Park Service, Ajo, AZ.

36pp.

Overpeck, J., G. Garfin, A. Jardine, D. Busch, D. Cayan, M. Dettinger, E. Fleishman, A.

Gershunov, G. MacDonald, K. Redmond, W. Travis, and B. Udall. 2012. Chapter 1: 

summary for decision makers. In Garfin, G., A. Jardine, R. Merideth, M. Black, and J.

Overpeck, eds., Assessment of Climate Change in the Southwest United States: a 

Technical Report Prepared for the U.S. National Climate Assessment. A report by the 

Southwest Climate Alliance, Southwest Climate Summit Draft, Tucson, AZ. 

Parker, K. M., R. J. Sheffer, and P. W. Hedrick. 1999. Molecular variation and evolutionarily 

significant units in the endangered Gila topminnow. Conservation Biology 13(1):108-

116.

Parmesan, C., and J. Matthews. 2006. Biological impacts of climate change. Pages 333–374 in 

Groom, M. J., G. K. Meffe, and C. R. Carroll, eds., Principles of Conservation Biology.

Sinauer Associates, Inc. Sunderland, Massachusetts. 

Pearsons, T. N., H. W. Li, and G. A. Lamberti. 1992. Influence of habitat complexity on 

resistance to flooding and resilience of stream fish assemblages. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 121:427–436. 

Pima Association of Governments. 2003. Contribution of Davidson Canyon to Base Flows in 

Cienega Creek. November. 49pp. 

Pima Association of Governments. 2010. Evaluation of Riparian Habitat and Headcutting along 

Lower Cienega Creek. Arizona Water Protection Fund Grant #07-144. Tucson, AZ. 53pp. 

Pima Association of Governments. 2012a. Cienega Creek Natural Preserve surface water and 

groundwater monitoring: annual report for the 2009-2010 fiscal year. Pima Association 

of Governments, Tucson, AZ. 80pp. 

Pima Association of Governments. 2012b. Shallow groundwater areas in Eastern Pima County, 

Arizona: water well inventory and pumping trend analysis. Tucson, AZ. 117pp. 

Pima County. 2000. Resources of the Cienega-Rincon Valley. Pima County, Tucons, AZ. 135pp. 

Pima County. 2012a. Multi-species conservation plan for Pima County, Arizona: public draft.

Submitted to the Arizona Ecological Services office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Tucson, Arizona. 137pp.

Pima County. 2012b. Multi-species conservation plan appendices for Pima County, Arizona: 

public draft. Submitted to the Arizona Ecological Services office of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Tucson, Arizona. 318pp.
385

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Pima County Flood Control District. 2013. Cienega Creek Natural Preserve. Accessed 21 March, 

2013. http://rfcd.pima.gov/wrd/landmgt/cienegapreserve/#overview 

Platts, W. S. 1991. Livestock grazing. Pages 389-424 in Meehan, W. R., ed., Influences of Forest 

and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and their Habitats, American Fisheries 

Society Special Publication 19: 389-423, Bethesda, MD. 

Platz, J. E., R. W. Clarkson, J. C. Rorabaugh, and D. M. Hillis. 1990. Rana berlandieri: Recently 

introduced populations in Arizona and southeastern California. Copeia 1990(2):324-333. 

Pollard, K., and M. Mather. 2010. Census counts nearly 309 Million Americans.

http://www.prb.org/Articles/2010/2010-unitedstates-census.aspx?p=1, Accessed 

November 15, 2011. 

Pool, D. R., and A. L. Coes. 1999. Hydro-geologic Investigations of the Sierra Vista 

subwatershed of the Upper San Pedro Basin, Cochise County, Southeast Arizona. US 

Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4197.

Propst, D. L., K. R. Bestgen, and C. W. Painter. 1986. Distribution, status, biology, and 

conservation of the spikedace (Meda fulgida) in New Mexico. Endangered Species 

Report No. 15, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 93pp. 

Rauscher, S. A., J. S. Pal, N. S. Diffenbaugh, and M. M. Benedetti. 2008. Future changes in 

snowmelt-driven runoff timing over the western US. Geophysical Research Letters 

35L16703:1–5. 

Rea, A. M. 1983. Once a river. Bird life and habitat changes on the Middle Gila River.

University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. 285pp. 

Regonda, S. K., B. Rajagopalan, M. Clark, and J. Pitlick. 2005. Seasonal shifts in 

hydroclimatology over the Western United States. Journal of Climate 18:372–384. 

Reinthal, P. 2009. Fish collection curator, University of Arizona. Written communication to K.

Kertell, SWCA. June 23. 

Rhodes, J. J. 2007. Watershed impacts of forest treatments to reduce fuels and modify fire 

behavior. Prepared for: Pacific Rivers Council, Eugene, Oregon. 

Rich, J. L. 1911. Recent stream trenching in the semi-arid portion of southwestern New Mexico, 

a result of removal of vegetation cover. American J. of Science 32:237–245.
386

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Rieman, B.E., and D.J. Isaak. 2010. Climate Change, Aquatic Ecosystems, and Fishes in the 

Rocky Mountain West: Implications and Alternatives for Management. General 

Technical Report RMRS-GTR-250. Fort Collins, Colorado: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

Rinne J. N. 1969. Cyprinid fishes of the genus Gila from the lower Colorado River Basin. M.S.

thesis, Arizona State University, Tempe Arizona. 

Rinne, J. N. 1975. Changes in minnow populations in a small desert stream resulting from 

natural and artificially induced factors. Southwestern Naturalist 202(2): 185-195.

Rinne, J. N. 1976. Cyprinid fishes of the genus Gila from the lower Colorado River basin.

Wasmann Journal Biology 34(1):65 107. 

Rinne, J. N. 1996. Short-term effects of wildfire on fishes and aquatic macroinvertebrates in the 

southwestern United States. North American J. of Fisheries Management 16:653-658.

Rinne, J. N. 2004. Forests, Fish and Fire: Relationships and Management Implications for Fishes 

in the Southwestern USA. Pages 151-156 in Scrimgeour, G. J., G. Eisler, B. McCulloch, 

U. Silins and M. Monita, eds., Forest Land–Fish Conference II – Ecosystem Stewardship 

through Collaboration, Proceedings of the Forest-Land-Fish Conference II, April 26-28, 

2004, Edmonton, Alberta.

Rinne, J. N., and A. L. Medina. 1992. Fire, fish, floods: The Dude Fire, Arizona, 1990. Proc.

Desert Fishes Council Ann. Symp. 26:30. 

Rinne, J. N., and D. Miller. 2006. Hydrology, geomorphology and management: Implications for 

sustainability of southwestern native fishes. Reviews in Fisheries Biology. 

Rinne, J. N., and W. L. Minckley. 1970. Native Arizona fishes, Part III the minnows called 

chubs. Arizona Wildlife Views 17(5):12 19. 

Rinne, J. N., and W. L. Minckley. 1991. Native fishes of arid lands: A dwindling resource of the 

desert Southwest. USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. RM 206, Rocky Mountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 45pp.

Rixon, T. F. 1905. Forest conditions in the Gila River Forest Reserve, New Mexico. U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper No. 39. 

Robinson, A. 2010. Arizona native fish recovery and nonnative fish control, final report. USFWS 

Agreement No 201816J808, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 34pp. 

Robinson, A. 2011. Gila River Basin Native Fishes Conservation Program: Cooperative 

Agreement 201819J853 Final Semi-Annual Report for the Period May 1, 2010--October 

31, 2010 Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 
387

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Robinson, A. 2012. Gila River Basin Native Fishes Conservation Program: Cooperative 

Agreement 201819J853 Semi-Annual Report for the Period May 1 thru October 31, 

2011. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 19pp. 

Robinson, A. T., P. P. Hines, J. A. Sorensen, and S. D. Bryan. 1998. Parasites and fish health in a 

desert stream, and management implications for two endangered fishes. North American 

Journal of Fisheries Management 18:599-608. 

Rosen, P. C., C. R. Schwalbe, D. A. Parizek, Jr., P. A. Holm, and C. H. Lowe. 1995. Introduced 

aquatic vertebrates in the Chiricahua region: Effects on declining native ranid frogs.

Pages 251-261 in DeBano, L. F., P. F. Ffolliott, A. Ortega-Rubio, G. J. Gottfried, R. H.

Hamre, and C. B. Edminster, tech. coords., Biodiversity and Management of the Madrean 

Archipelago: The Sky Islands of Southwestern United States and Mexico, USDA Forest 

Service, Gen. Tech. Rept. RM-GTR-264, Rocky Mtn. For. & Range Exp. Stn., Ft.

Collins, Colorado. 669pp.

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied river morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Inc., Pagosa Springs, CO. 

Rutman, S. 1997. Dirt is not cheap: livestock grazing and a legacy of accelerated soil erosion on 

Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona. Pages 360 375 in Environmental, 

Economic, and Legal Issues Related to Rangeland Water Developments, Proceedings of a 

Symposium, Tempe, Arizona, Center for the Study of Law, Arizona State Univ., Tempe. 

Savage, M., and T. W. Swetnam. 1990. Early 19th-century fire decline following sheep pasturing 

in a Navajo ponderosa pine forest. Ecology 71:2374-2378. 

Schneider, N., and B. D. Cornuelle. 2005. The forcing of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Journal 

of Climate 18:4355-4373.

Schrank, A. J., F. J. Rahel, and H. C. Johnstone. 2003. Evaluating laboratory-derived thermal 

criteria in the field: An example involving Bonneville cutthroat trout. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 132:100–109. 

Schultz, A.A. 2009. Selected aspects of the natural history and culture of Gila chub. PhD. Diss., 

University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. 138pp. 

Schultz, A.A., and Bonar, S.A. 2006. Spawning and culture of Gila chub. Final Report to the 

Arizona Game and Fish Department. Fisheries Research Report 02-07, AZ Cooperative 

Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, USGS, Univ. of AZ, Tucson, AZ. 

Schulz, T. T., and W. C. Leininger. 1990. Differences in riparian vegetation structure between 

grazed areas and exclosures. Journal of Range Management 43(4): 295-299. 
388

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Seager, R., M. Ting, I. Held, Y. Kushnir, J. Lu, G. Vecchi, H.-P. Huang, N. Harnik, A. Leetmaa, 

N.-C. Lau, C. Li, J. Velex, and N. Naik. 2007. Model projections of an imminent 

transition to a more arid climate in southwestern North America. Science 316:1181–

1184.

Shelton, W. L., and R. O. Smitherman. 1984. Exotic fishes in warmwater aquaculture. Pages 

262-301 in Courtenay, Jr., W. R., and J. R. Stauffer, Jr., eds., Distribution, Biology, and 

Management of Exotic Fishes, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 

Sheppard, P. R., A. C. Comrie, G. D. Packin, K. Angersbach, and M. K. Hughes. 2002. The 

climate of the US southwest. Climate Research 21:219–238.

Sheridan, T. E. 1986. Los Tucsonenses: The Mexican community in Tucson, 1854-1941. 

University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. 327pp. 

Simms, J. R. 2001. Cienega Creek stream restoration project. Hendrickson, D. A., and L. T.

Findley, eds, Proc. of the Desert Fishes Council 32:13-14. 

Simms, J. R. 2009. Fishery Biologist, Bureau of Land Management. Email communication to K.

Kertell, SWCA. June 10. 

Simms, J. 2013. Chub in Empire Gulch and Rosemont. Electronic mail communication to Doug 

Duncan, USFWS, 2 April, 2013. 

Simms, J. R. and K. M. Simms. 1992. What constitutes high quality habitat for Gila topminnow 

(Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis)? An overview of habitat parameters supporting a 

robust population at Cienega Creek, Pima Co., AZ. Proc. Desert Fishes Council 24:22-23.

Smith, K., and M. E. Lavis. 1975. Environmental influences on the temperature of a small upland 

stream. Oikos 26:228–236.

Soule, M. E. 1990. The onslaught of alien species, and other challenges in the coming decades.

Conservation Biology 4(3):233-239. 

Spencer, C. N., and F. R. Hauer. 1991. Phosphorus and nitrogen dynamics in streams during a 

wildfire. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 10(1):24-30. 

SRK. 2012. Memorandum: Pt. 3, SWCA Questions 1 through 3 – professional opinions to assess 

impacts to distant surface waters and modeling certainty. July 31, 2012. 

State of New Mexico: New Mexico Office of the State Engineer. 2005. Potential effects of 

climate change on New Mexico. Agency Technical Workgroup. Santa Fe, New Mexico.

http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/cc/Potential_Effects_Climate_Change_NM.pdf.

Accessed October 30, 2011. 
389

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Stefferud, S. E., and M. R. Meador. 1998. Interbasin water transfers and nonnative aquatic 

species movement: a brief case history review. Proc. of the Desert Fishes Council 47.

Stewart, I. T., D. R. Cayan, M. D. Dettinger. 2004. Changes in snowmelt runoff timing in 

western North American under a 'business as usual' climate change scenario. Climatic 

Change 62: 217-32. 

Stewart, I. T., D. R. Cayan, and M. D. Dettinger. 2005. Changes toward earlier streamflow 

timing across Western North America. Journal of Climate 18:1136–1155. 

Stine, S. 1994. Extreme and persistent drought in California and Patagonia during mediaeval 

time. Nature 369:546-549. 

Stout, G.G., E.C. Bloom, and J.K. Glass. 1970. The Fishes of Cave Creek, Maricopa County, 

Arizona. Journal Arizona Academy Science, 6(2): 109-113. 

Sublette, J. E., M. D. Hatch, and M. Sublette. 1990. The fishes of New Mexico. University of 

New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 347 pp. 

Swanston, D. N. 1991. Natural processes. Pages 139-179 in Meehan, W. R., ed., Influences of 

forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. American 

Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. Bethesda, Maryland. 

SWCA. 2012. Presentation made to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Forest Service to Convey 

Detailed Information Regarding the Seeps, Springs, and Riparian Impacts Analysis in the 

Rosemont EIS, in order to inform the USFWS Section 7 consultation process. November 

12, 2012. 65 pp. 

Swetnam, T. W. 1990. Fire history and climate in the southwestern United States. Pages 6-17 in

J. S. Krammes, tech. coord., Effects of Fire in Manage. of Southwestern Natural 

Resources. USDA Forest Service, GTR RM-191 Rocky Mtn. For. & Range Exp. Stn., Ft.

Collins, Colorado. 

Swetnam, T. W., and C. H. Baisan. 1996. Fire histories of montane forests in the Madrean 

Borderlands. Pages 15-36 in Ffolliott, P. F., et al., tech. coord., Effects of Fire on 

Madrean Province Ecosystems, USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report, RMGTR-289, Rocky Mtn. For. & Range Exp. Stn., Ft. Collins, CO. 

Swetnam, T. W., and J. Dieterich. 1985. Fire history of ponderosa pine forests in the Gila 

Wilderness, New Mexico. Pages 390-397 in Lotan, J. E., B. M. Kilgore, W. M. Fischer, 

and R. W. Mutch, tech. coords., Wilderness Fire: Proc. Symp. & Workshop. USDA FS, 

GTR INT 182, Res. Stn., Ogden, UT. 
390

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Tellman, B., R. Yarde, and M. G. Wallace. 1997. Arizona’s changing rivers: How people have 

affected the rivers. Issue Paper 19, Water Resources Research Center, University of 

Arizona, Tucson, AZ. 198pp. 

Tetra Tech. 2010. Regional Groundwater Flow Model, Rosemont Copper Project. Tetra Tech 

Project No,. 114-320874, Prepared for Rosemont Copper. Tucson, Arizona. 

Tetra Tech. 2012. Baseline & Post Mine Hydrology and Sediment Delivery at USGS Gage for 

Barrel Alternative. Technical Memorandum. 

Touchan, R., T. W. Swetnam, and H. D. Grissino-Mayer. 1995. Effects of livestock grazing on 

pre-settlement fire regimes in New Mexico. Pages 268-272 in Brown, J. K., R. W. Mutch, 

C. W. Spoon, and R. H. Wakimoto, tech. coords., Proc.: Symp. on Fire in Wilderness and 

Park Management, March 30 - April 1, 1993, Missoula, MT, USDA Forest Service, 

General Technical Report INT-GTR-320, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 

Turner, R. M., R. H. Webb., J. E. Bowers, and J. R. Hastings. 2003. The changing mile revisited.

University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ 334pp. 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1998. Gila Box Management Plan, environmental 

assessment, and decision record. Bureau of Land Management, Safford Field Office, 

Safford, Arizona. 90pp. 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2002. Biological evaluation for the Las Cienegas 

Resource Management plan. U.S. Department of the Interior, BLM, Tucson Field Office, 

Tucson, AZ. 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2008. Final Environmental 

Assessment, native fish restoration project, Redrock Canyon, Santa Cruz County, 

Arizona. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Phoenix Area Office, Glendale, AZ. 198pp.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2005. Florida, California and Texas to dominate future population growth, 

Census Bureau reports. Web page: http://www.census.gov/PressRelease/www/releases/archives/population/004704.html Accessed 12 October 2005. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. Ecological Toxicity Information. Available 

at: http://www.epa.gov/region5superfund/ecology/toxprofiles.htm. Accessed June 5, 

2012.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998.

Endangered Species consultation handbook: procedures for conducting consultation and 

conference activities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 
391

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1983. Central Arizona water control study - Formal 

consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, biological opinion. 2-21-83-

F-10. March 8, 1983. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 13pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1994. Final biological opinion on the transportation and 

delivery of Central Arizona Project water to the Gila River Basin (Hassayampa, Agua 

Fria, Salt, Verde, San Pedro, middle and upper Gila Rivers, and associated tributaries) in 

Arizona and New Mexico. 2-21-90-F-119, USFWS, Albuquerque, NM. 41pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1998. Biological opinion on reintroduction of beaver into 

the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area. Memorandum, June 17, 1998 (2-21-

97-F-097) from Acting Field Supervisor, AESO, USFWS, to Field Manager, BLM, 

Tucson, Phoenix, AZ. 48pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1998a. Biological opinion on the Cienega Creek stream 

restoration project. Memorandum, June 3 (2-21-98-F-373) from Acting Field Supervisor, 

Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, USFWS, to Manager, Tucson Field Office, 

BLM, Phoeninx, AZ. 51pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2002. Biological opinion: Effects of the proposed Las 

Cienegas National Conservation Area Resource Management Plan in Pima and Santa 

Cruz Counties, Arizona. October 4 Memo (02-21-02-F-162) from Field Supervisor, 

AESO, USFWS, to Field Manager, Tucson Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, 

Tucson, AZ. 198pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 

Final rule listing the Gila chub as endangered with critical habitat. Federal Register 

67(154): 51948-51985. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2008. Reinitiated biological opinion on transportation and 

delivery of Central Arizona Project water to the Gila River Basin in Arizona and New 

Mexico and its potential to introduce and spread nonindigenous aquatic species.

Memorandum May 15 (02-21-90-F-119, 02-21-91-F-406, 22410-2007-F-0081) from 

Field Supervisor, AESO, USFWS, to Area Manager, Bureau of Reclamation, Phoenix, 

Arizona. 162pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2012. Reinitiation of Biological Opinion on the Las 

Cienegas National Conservation Area Resources Management Plan (22410-2002-F-0162) 

in Pima and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona. Memorandum from Field Supervisor, AESO, 

USFWS, to Field Manager, Tucson Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, 

AZ. 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2012a. Biological Assessment, Rosemont Copper Company Project, 

Santa Rita Mountains, Nogales Ranger District. Coronado National Forest, Tucson, AZ.

194 pp.
392

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2012b. Supplement to the Biological Assessment, Proposed 

Rosemont Copper Mine, Santa Rita Mountains, Arizona, Coronado National Forest. 36 

pp.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013a. [Second] Supplement to the Biological Assessment, 

Proposed Rosemont Copper Mine, Santa Rita Mountains, Arizona, Coronado National 

Forest. Coronado National Forest, Tucson, AZ. 65 pp.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013b. Electronic mail message and attachments regarding a 

potential monitoring well network to predict potential impacts to Gila chub and Gila 

topminnow. 6 pp. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1997. Modeling Ground-Water Flow with MODFLOW and 

Related Programs. USGS Fact Sheet FS-121-97. 4 pp.

U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 2001. Preparing for a changing climate: the 

potential consequences of climate variability and change – Southwest. A Report of the 

Southwest Regional Assessment Group for the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

Institute for the Study of Planet Earth, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. 60pp. 

Varela-Romero, A., C. Galindo-Duarte, E. Saucedo-Monarque, L.S. Anderson, P. Warren, S.

Stefferud, J. Stefferud, S. Rutman, T. Tibbets, and J. Malusa. 1992. Re-discovery of Gila 

intermedia and Gila purpurea in the north of Sonora, Mexico. Proceedings of the Desert 

Fishes Council Vol. 22 (1990). 

Voeltz, J. B., and R. H. Bettaso. 2003. 2003 Status of the Gila topminnow and desert pupfish in 

Arizona. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 226, Arizona 

Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 124pp.

Wang, B., J. Liuc, H. Kim, P. J. Webster, S. Yim, and B. Xiang. 2013. Northern Hemisphere 

summer monsoon intensified by mega-El Niño/southern oscillation and Atlantic 

multidecadal oscillation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 

110(14):5347-5352 . 

Webb, R. H., and J. L. Betancourt. 1992. Climatic variability and flood frequency of the Santa 

Cruz River, Pima County, Arizona. USGS, Water-Supply Paper 2379. 40pp. 

Weedman, D. A. 1999. Gila topminnow, Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis, revised recovery 

plan. Draft. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 86pp. 

Weedman, D. A., A. L. Girmendonk, and K. L. Young. 1996. Status review of Gila chub, Gila 

intermedia, in the United States and Mexico. Arizona Game and Fish Department, 

Nongame Technical Report 91, Phoenix, AZ. 111pp.
393

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Welcomme, R. L. 1988. International introductions of inland aquatic species. Food and 

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), FAO Fisheries Tech. Paper 294, 

Rome. 318pp. 

Westerling, A. L., H. G. Hidalgo, D. R. Cyan, and T. W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and earlier 

spring increase western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science 313:940–943. 

WestLand Resources, Inc. (WestLand). 2012. Potential Effects of the Rosemont Project on 

Lower Cienega Creek. Prepared for Rosemont Copper Company. Tucson, Arizona. 

November 14.

Wetzel, R. G. 1983. Limnology, second edition. Sanders College Publishing, Philadelphia, PA. 

760+pp.

Wilson, B. L., J. D. Deason, and W. G. Bradley. 1996. Parasitism in the fishes of the Moapa 

River, Clark County, Nevada. Trans. California-Nevada Sect. Wildlife Soc. 1966:12-23. 

York, J. C,. and W. A. Dick Peddie. 1969. Vegetation changes in southern New Mexico during 

the past hundred years. Pages 157-166 in McGinnies, W. G., and B. J. Goldman, eds., 

Arid Lands in Perspective, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. 

Gila Topminnow 

Bestgen, K. R., and D. L. Propst. 1989. Red shiner vs. native fishes: Replacement or 

displacement? Proc. of the Desert Fishes Council 18:209. 

Brooks, J. E. 1986. Status of natural and introduced Sonoran topminnow (Poeciliopsis o. 

occidentalis) populations in Arizona through 1985. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. 19+pp. 

Chamberlain, F. M. 1904. Notes on fishes collected in Arizona, 1904. Unpublished manuscript, 

U.S. National Museum, Washington D.C. 

Duncan, D. K. 2013. Gila topminnow interactions with western mosquitofish: an update. Pages 

283-287 in Gottfried, G. J., P. F. Ffolliott, B. S. Gebow, L. G. Eskew, and L. C. Collins, 

comps., Merging Science & Management in a Rapidly Changing World: Biodiversity & 

Manage. of the Madrean Archipelago III and 7th Conf. on Research and Resource Manage. 

in the Southwestern Deserts; 2012 May 1-5; Tucson, AZ, Proc., USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, RMRS-P-67, Fort Collins, CO. 593pp. 

Fernandez, P. J., and P. C. Rosen. 1996. Effects of the introduced crayfish Orconectes virilis on 

native aquatic herpetofauna in Arizona. Report to Heritage Program, Ariz. Game and Fish 

Dept., Phoenix, AZ. IIPAM Proj. No. I94054. 57+pp. 
394

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Hedrick, P. W., and C. R. Hurt. 2012. Conservation genetics and evolution in an endangered 

species: research in Sonoran topminnows. Evolutionary Applications 5(2012):806-819. 

Hubbs, C. L., and R. R. Miller. 1941. Studies of the fishes of the order Cyprinodonts. XVII: 

Genera and species of the Colorado River system. Occas. Papers Mus. Zool., Univ. Mich. 

433:1-9. 

Johnson, J. E., and C. Hubbs. 1989. Status and conservation of poeciliid fishes. Pages 301-331 in

Meffe, G. K., and F. F. Snelson, eds., Ecology and Evolution of Livebearing Fishes 

(Poeciliidae), Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 453pp. 

Laurenson, L. B. J., and C. H. Hocutt. 1985. Colonization theory and invasive biota: The Great 

Fish River, a case history. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 6(1985):71-90. 

MacArthur, R. H., and E. O. Wilson. 1967. The theory of island biogeography. Princeton 

University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 

Marsh, P. C., and W. L. Minckley. 1990. Management of endangered Sonoran topminnow at 

Bylas Springs, Arizona: description, critique, and recommendations. Great Basin Naturalist 

50(3):265-272. 

Meffe, G. K. 1983. Attempted chemical renovation of an Arizona spring brook for management 

of the endangered Sonoran topminnow. N. American J. Fisheries Management 3:315-321.

Meffe, G. K. 1984. Effects of abiotic disturbance on coexistence of predator-prey fish species. 

Ecology 65(5):1525-1534. 

Meffe, G. K., D. A., Hendrickson, and J. N. Rinne. 1982. Description of a new topminnow 

population in Arizona, with observations on topminnow/mosquitofish co-occurrence. 

Southwestern Naturalist 27(2):226-228. 

Minckley, W. L. 1969. Native Arizona fishes, part I— livebearers. Arizona Wildlife Views 

 16:6-8. 

Minckley, W. L., G. K. Meffe, and D. L. Soltz. 1991. Conservation and management of shortlived fishes: the cyprinodontoids. Pages 247-282 in Minckley, W. L., and J. E. Deacon, 

eds., Battle Against Extinction - Native Fish Management in the American West, 

University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. 

Moyle, P. B., and J. E. Williams. 1990. Biodiversity loss in the temperate zone: Decline of the 

native fish fauna of California. Conservation Biology 4(3):275-284. 
395

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Perez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. 

D. Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, 

Canada, and Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Bethesda, 

Maryland. 386pp. 

Quattro, J. M., and R. C. Vrijenhoek. 1989. Fitness differences among remnant populations of 

the endangered Sonoran topminnow. Science 245:976-978.

Robinson, A. 2013. Gila River Basin Native Fishes Conservation Program: Cooperative 

Agreement F09AC00084, Annual Report for the Period Nov. 1, 2011 thru October 31, 

2012. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 27pp. 

Schoenherr, A. A. 1974. Life history of the topminnow, Poeciliopsis occidentalis (Baird and 

Girard) in Arizona, and an analysis of its interaction with the mosquitofish Gambusia 

affinis (Baird and Girard). Ph.D. Dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ. 

Simms, J. 2010. Empire Gulch monitoring and frog transfer field report. Bureau of Land 

Management, Tucson Field Office, Tucson, AZ. 2pp. 

Stefferud, J. A., and S. E. Stefferud. 1994. Status of Gila topminnow and results of monitoring of 

the fish community in Redrock Canyon, Coronado National Forest, Santa Cruz County, 

Arizona, 1979-1993. Pages 361-369 in DeBano, L. F., P. F. Ffolliott, A. Ortega-Rubio, G. 

J. Gottfried, R. H. Hamre, and C. B. Edminster, tech. coords., Biodiversity and 

Management of the Madrean Archipelago: The Sky Islands of Southwestern United States 

and Mexico. USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rept. RM-GTR-264, Rocky Mtn. For. & 

Range Exp. Stn., Ft. Collins, Colorado. 669pp.

Stefferud, S. E., and J. A. Stefferud. 2008. Report of activities in calendar year 2008 under 

Permit number TE053109-0. Phoenix, AZ. 4pp.

SWCA. 2012. Presentation made to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Forest Service to Convey 

Detailed Information Regarding the Seeps, Springs, and Riparian Impacts Analysis in the 

Rosemont EIS, in order to inform the USFWS Section 7 consultation process. November 

12, 2012. 65 pp. 
396

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2007. Biological evaluation for the proposed 

construction of aquatic habitat and stocking of Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis), 

desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius), Chiricahua leopard frog (Rana chiricahuensis), 

and Huachuca water umbel (Liliaeopsis schaffneriana var recurva) into waters on the San 

Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area and Las Cienegas National Conservation Area, 

Cochise and Pima Counties, Arizona. Bureau of Land Management, Tucson Field Office, 

Tucson, AZ. 71pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (FWS) 1984. Sonoran topminnow recovery plan. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 56pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1995. Yaqui fishes recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Electronic mail message and attachments regarding a 

potential monitoring well network to predict potential impacts to Gila chub and Gila 

topminnow. 6 pp. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1997. Modeling Ground-Water Flow with MODFLOW and 

Related Programs. USGS Fact Sheet FS-121-97. 4 pp.

Voeltz, J. B. 2004. New location for Gila topminnow in Cienega Creek. Memorandum to Doug 

Duncan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, March 18, Arizona Game and Fish Department, 

Phoenix, AZ. 

Weedman, D. A., and K. L. Young. 1997. Status of the Gila topminnow and desert pupfish in 

Arizona. Ariz. Game and Fish Dept., Nongame and Endangered Wildl. Prog. Tech. Rept. 

118, Phoenix, AZ. 141pp. 

Huachuca Water Umbel 

Affolter, J.M. 1985. A Monograph of the Genus Lilaeopsis (Umbelliferae). Systematic Botany 

Monographs Volume 6: 1-140. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2011. Special Status Species within the Rosemont 

Mine Study Area. AGFD # M11-08150947. Heritage Data Management System. Tucson, 

Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. August 15. 

Anderson, G. 2006. Huachuca water umbel in the Upper San Pedro watershed of Sonora, 

Mexico. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tucson, AZ. 

Arizona Department of Water Resources. 1991. Preliminary hydrographic survey report for the 

San Pedro River watershed. Volume 1: General Assessment. Phoenix, Arizona. 548 pp. 
397

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Arizona Game and Fish Department 1993. Arizona Riparian Inventory and Mapping Project.

Phoenix, Arizona. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 1997. Lilaeopsis schaffneriana var. recurva. Unpublished 

abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game 

and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. 

Bahre, C.J. 1991. A legacy of change: Historic human impact on vegetation of the Arizona 

borderlands. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona. 231pp.

Bryan, K. 1925. Date of channel trenching (arroyo cutting) in the arid southwest. Science 

62:338-344. 

Bureau of Land Management (BML). 2011. Survey data for Huachuca water umbel within 

Cienega Creek and Mattie Canyon. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2013. Agency Review of the Internal Working Draft of the 

Rosemont Copper Company Draft Biological Opinion. 8 pp. 

Dobyns, H.F. 1981. From fire to flood: historic human destruction of Sonoran Desert riverine 

oases. Ballena Press, Socorro, New Mexico. 222pp.

Engineering and Environmental Consultants, Inc. (EEC). 2001. Final Report Huachuca Water 

Umbel Surveys, Cienega Creek Preserve, Bingham Cienega Preserve, La Cebadilla 

Property, Pima County, Arizona. Prepared for Pima County Flood Control District, 

Tucson, Arizona. 

Falk, D. and P.L. Warren. 1994. Rare plants of the Coronado National Forest: Population studies 

and monitoring recommendations. Report to the Coronado National Forest, Tucson, 

Arizona. 

Geraghty and Miller, Inc. 1995. Historical flows and conditions in the San Pedro River. Report 

to the Water Action Task Force, Sierra Vista Economic Development Foundation, Project 

No. AZ0473.001. 33pp +figures. 

Gori, D.F., P.L. Warren, and L.S. Anderson. 1990. Population studies of sensitive plants of the 

Huachuca, Patagonia, and Atascosa Mountains, Arizona. Unpublished report. Coronado 

National Forest, Tucson. 114pp.

Haas, S.K, and R.J. Frye. 1997. Hydrology and water quality effects on Lilaeopsis schaffneriana 

ssp. recurva. Report to Arizona Dept. of Agriculture and Fort Huachuca. 

Hastings, J.R.and R.M. Turner. 1980. The changing mile. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

327pp.
398

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Hendrickson, D.A., and W.L. Minckley. 1984. Ciénagas - vanishing climax communities of the 

American Southwest. Desert Plants 6(3):131-175. 

Hereford, R. 1993. Geomorphic evolution of the San Pedro River channel since 1900 in the San 

Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, southeast Arizona. US Geological Survey, 

Open File Report 92-339. 71pp.

Johnson, K., P.L. Warren, D.F. Gori, and E.S. Monarque. 1992. Species management evaluation, 

cienega false rush (Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva). Unpublished report. The 

Nature Conservancy, Tucson, Arizona. 

Leenhouts, J. M., Stromberg, J. C., and R. L. Scott. 2006. Hydrologic requirements of and 

consumptive ground-water use by riparian vegetation along the San Pedro River, 

Arizona. Reston, VA. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005–

5163, 154 pp. 

Martin, S.C. 1975. Ecology and management of southwestern semidesert grass-shrub ranges: the 

status of our knowledge. US Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 39pp.

Mier, M. 2012. Personal communication via electronic mail between Mead Mier of the Pima 

Association of Governments and Jeff Simms of the Bureau of Land Management 

regarding drought conditions in Cienega Creek. 

Pima County. 2001. Huachuca Water Umbel Report: Sonoran Desert Conservation and 

Comprehensive Land Use Plan Summer 2001. Tucson, Arizona. 

Saucedo-Monarque, E. 1990. Proyecto: Prospeccion de plantas raras en el Norte de Sonora.

Centro Ecologico de Sonora, Subdireccion de Investigacion, Area de Ecologia Terrestre, 

Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico. 65pp. 

Shafer, C.L. 1990. Nature reserves, island theory and conservation practice. Smithsonian 

Institution Press, Washington D.C. 189pp. 

Sheridan, T.E. 1986. Los Tucsonenses: the Mexican community in Tucson, 1854-1941.

University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 327pp. 

State of Arizona. 1990. Final report and recommendations of the Governor’s riparian habitat task 

force. Executive Order 89-16. Streams and riparian resources. Phoenix, Arizona. October 

1990. 28 pp. 

Stromberg, J.C., K.J. Bagstad, J.M. Leenhouts, S.L. Lite, and E Makings. 2005. Effects of 

Stream Flow Intermittency on Riparian Vegetation of a Semiarid Region River (San 

Pedro River, Arizona). River Research and Applications 21: 925-938.
399

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

SRK Consulting. 2012. Memorandum to Chris Garrett of SWCA regarding Pt. 3 SWCA 

Questions 1 through 3 - Professional Opinions to Assess Impacts to Distant Surface 

Waters and Modeling Certainty. Pp 22-28 in SWCA, Presentation made to U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Forest Service to Convey Detailed Information Regarding the 

Seeps, Springs, and Riparian Impacts Analysis in the Rosemont EIS, in order to inform 

the USFWS Section 7 consultation process. 

SWCA. 2012. Presentation made to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Forest Service to Convey 

Detailed Information Regarding the Seeps, Springs, and Riparian Impacts Analysis in the 

Rosemont EIS, in order to inform the USFWS Section 7 consultation process. November 

12, 2012. 65 pp. 

Tetra Tech. 2010. Regional Groundwater Flow Model, Rosemont Copper Project. Tetra Tech 

Project No,. 114-320874. Prepared for Rosemont Copper. Tucson, Arizona. November. 

Titus, P., A. Zuhlke, S. Scott, K. Sovenyhazy, and J. Titus. 2002. Huachuca water umbel - 

endangered wetland plant in Arizona. Poster paper presented at Fourth Conf. on Research 

and Resource Management in the Southwestern Deserts: Meeting Resource Management 

Information Needs, May 15-17, Tucson. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1997. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 

determination of endangered status for three wetland species found in southern Arizona 

and Northern Sonora, Mexico. Federal Register 62(3):665-689. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1999. Endangered and threatened wildlife plants; 

Designation of Critical Habitat for Huachuca Water Umbel. A plant. Final rule. 50 CFR 

Part 17. July 12, 1999. Federal Register 64 (132); 37441-37453. 

Vernadero Group, Inc. 2011. 2010 Huachuca Water Umbel (Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp.

recurva) San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area Inventory Report, Cochise 

County, Arizona. Prepared for Environment and Natural Resource Division, Directorate 

of Public Works, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Huachuca, Arizona, 30 pp. plus appendices. 

Warren, P.L., D.F. Gori, L.S. Anderson, and B.S. Gebow. 1991. Status report for Lilaeopsis 

schaffneriana ssp. recurva. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services 

State Office, Phoenix, Arizona. 30 pp. 

Warren, P.L., and F.W. Reichenbacher. 1991. Sensitive plant survey of Fort Huachuca, Arizona. 

Report to U.S. Army, Fort Huachuca, AZ. Purchase Order DAEA1889P4546. 

Warren, P.L., L.S. Anderson, and P.B. Shaffroth. 1989. Population studies of sensitive plants of 

the Huachuca and Patagonia Mountains, Arizona. Unpublished Report, Coronado 

National Forest, Tucson. 99pp.
400

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Webb, R.H. and J.L. Betancourt. 1992. Climatic variability and flood frequency of the Santa 

Cruz River, Pima County, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Water-supply Paper 2379. 

Wilcox, B.A., and D.D. Murphy. 1985. Conservation strategy: the effects of fragmentation on 

extinction. American Naturalist 125:879-887. 

Effects to Riparian Ecosystems 

Amlin, N.M., and S.B. Rood, 2002, Comparative tolerances of riparian willows and cottonwoods 

to water-table decline: Wetlands 22: 338–346.

Brown, D. E. 1982. Warm-Temperate Wetlands. Pp. 248-262 in Brown, D. E., ed. Biotic 

Communities of the American Southwest – United States and Mexico. Desert Plants 4(1-

4). University of Arizona, Boyce Thompson Southwestern Arboretum. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2013. Agency Review of the Internal Working Draft of the 

Rosemont Copper Company Draft Biological Opinion. 8 pp. 

Fenner, P., W.W. Brady, and D.R. Patton. 1984. Observations on seeds and seedlings of Fremont 

cottonwood: Desert Plants 6:55-58. 

Horton, J.L., and J.L. Clark. 2001. Water table decline alters growth and survival of Salix 

gooddingii and Tamarix chinensis seedlings: Forest Ecology and Management 140:239–

247.

Horton, J.L., T.E. Kolb, and S.C. Hart. 2001a. Physiological response to groundwater depth 

varies among species and with river flow regulation: Ecological Applications 11: 1046-

1059.

Horton, J.L., Kolb, T.E., and Hart, S.C. 2001b. Responses of riparian trees to interannual 

variation in ground water depth in a semi-arid river basin: Plant, Cell and Environment: 

24: 293-304. 

Kalischuk, A.R., Rood, S.B., and Mahoney, J.M., 2001, Environmental influences on seedling 

growth of cottonwood species following a major flood: Forest Ecology and Management, 

v 144 , p. 75–89.

Leenhouts, J. M., Stromberg, J. C., and R. L. Scott. 2006. Hydrologic requirements of and 

consumptive ground-water use by riparian vegetation along the San Pedro River, 

Arizona. Reston, VA. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005–

5163, 154 pp.

Lite, S.J., and J.C. Stromberg. 2005. Surface water and ground-water thresholds for maintaining 

Populus-Salix forests, San Pedro River, Arizona: Biological Conservation 125:153-167. 
401

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Mahoney, J.M., and S.B. Rood. 1998. Streamflow requirements for cottonwood seedling 

recruitment - An integrative model. Wetlands 18: 634-645 . 

Merritt, D.M. and H.L. Bateman. 2012. Linking stream flow and groundwater to avian habitat in 

a desert riparian system. Ecological Applications 22(7): 1973–1988.

National Wetlands Inventory. 2013. National Wetlands Inventory. Data Limitations, Exclusions 

and Precautions. Accessed on-line on June 19, 2013 at 

http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Limitations.html. 

Parametrix. 2008. Restoration analysis and recommendations for the San Acacia reach of the 

Middle Rio Grande, NM. Albuquerque, NM. 

Pima County Regional Flood Control District (PCRFCD). 2011. Regulated Riparian Habitat 

Mitigation Standards and Implementation Guidelines. Supplement to Title 16, Chapter 

16.30 of the Watercourse and Riparian Habitat Protection and Mitigation Requirements 

Ordinance No. 2010 FC5. November. 15 pp, plus appendices. 

Pima County Geographic Information Systems. 2012. Pima County MagGuide Maps. Available 

at: http://gis.pima.gov/maps/mapguide/. Accessed during the preparation of the Rosemont 

Copper Project Biological Assessment June 5, 2012. 

Rood S.B. and J.M. Mahoney. 1990. Collapse of riparian poplar forests downstream from dams 

in western prairies: probable causes and prospects for mitigation. Environmental 

Management 14: 451-464. 

Scott, M.L., P.B. Shafroth, and G.T. Auble. 1999. Responses of riparian cottonwoods to alluvial 

water table declines. Environmental Management 23: 347-358. 

Scott, M.L., G.C. Lines, and G.T. Auble. 2000. Channel incision and patterns of cottonwood 

stress and mortality along the Mojave River, California. Journal of Arid Environments 

44: 399-414 . 

Segelquist, C.A., M.L. Scott, and G.T. Auble. 1993. Establishment of Populus deltoides under 

simulated alluvial groundwater declines. American Midland Naturalist 130:275-285. 

Shafroth, P.B., G.T. Auble., J.C. Stromberg, and D.T. Patten. 1998. Establishment of woody 

riparian vegetation in relation to annual patterns of streamflow, Bill Williams River, 

Arizona. Wetlands 18: 577-590. 

Shafroth, P.B., J.C. Stromberg, and D.T. Patten. 2000. Woody riparian vegetation response to 

different alluvial water table regimes. Western North American Naturalist 60: 66-76. 

Shafroth, P.B., J.C. Stromberg, and D.T. Patten. 2002. Riparian vegetation response to altered 

disturbance and stress regimes. Ecological Applications 12: 107-123. 
402

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Stromberg, J.C., Tiller, R., and Richter, B., 1996, Effects of groundwater decline on riparian 

vegetation of semi-arid regions—The San Pedro River, Arizona: Ecological Applications, 

v. 6, p. 113 –131.

Stromberg, J.C., K.J. Bagstad, J.M. Leenhouts, S.L. Lite, and E Makings. 2005. Effects of 

Stream Flow Intermittency on Riparian Vegetation of a Semiarid Region River (San 

Pedro River, Arizona). River Research and Applications 21: 925-938.

Stromberg, J.C., V.B. Beauchamp, M.D. Dixon, S.J. Lite, and C. Paradzick. 2007a. Importance 

of low-flow and high- flow characteristics to restoration of riparian vegetation along 

rivers in arid southwestern United States. Freshwater Biology 52: 651-679. 

Stromberg, J.C., S.J. Lite, R. Marler, C. Paradzick, P.B. Shafroth, D. Shorrock, J.M. White, and 

M.S. White. 2007b. Altered stream-flow regimes and invasive plant species: the Tamarix 

case. Global Ecology and Biogeography 16(3): 381-393.

SWCA. 2012. Presentation made to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Forest Service to Convey 

Detailed Information Regarding the Seeps, Springs, and Riparian Impacts Analysis in the 

Rosemont EIS, in order to inform the USFWS Section 7 consultation process. November 

12, 2012. 65 pp. 

Tetra Tech. 2010. Regional Groundwater Flow Model, Rosemont Copper Project. Tetra Tech 

Project No,. 114-320874. Prepared for Rosemont Copper. Tucson, Arizona. November. 

Tyree, M.T., K.J. Kolb, S.B. Rood, and S. Patino. 1994. Vulnerability to drought-induced 

cavitation of riparian cottonwoods in Alberta - A possible factor in the decline of the 

ecosystem? Tree Physiology 14: 455-466. 

WestLand Resources, Inc. (WestLand). 2010. Onsite Riparian Habitat Assessment, Rosemont 

Project. Prepared for Rosemont Copper Company. Tucson, Arizona: WestLand 

Resources, Inc. April. 

WestLand Resources, Inc. (WestLand). 2011g. Rosemont Copper Project: July 2011 Seeps and 

Springs Survey. Project No. 1049.14. Prepared for Rosemont Copper Company. Tucson, 

Arizona. August 19. 

WestLand Resources, Inc. (WestLand). 2012a. Rosemont Copper Project: Seeps and Springs 

Survey 2011-2012. Prepared for Rosemont Copper Company. Tucson, Arizona. July 11. 

WestLand Resources, Inc. (WestLand). 2012b Potential Effects of the Rosemont Project on 

Lower Cienega Creek. Prepared for Rosemont Copper Company. Tucson, Arizona.

November 14. 
403

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 

Arizona Department of Water Resources. 1994. Arizona riparian protection program legislature 

report. Arizona Department of Water Resources, Phoenix, AZ. 

Bent, A.C. 1960. Life histories of North American flycatchers, larks, swallows and their allies. 

Dover Press, New York, New York. 555 pp. 

Brand, L.A., J.C. Stromberg, and B.R. Noon. 2010. Avian Density and Nest Survival on the San 

Pedro River: Importance of Vegetation Type and Hydrologic Regime. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 74(4):739-775. 

Brand, L.A., J.C. Stromberg, D.C. Goodrich, M.D. Dixon, K. Lansey, D. Kang, D.S. Brookshire, 

and D.J. Cerasale. 2011. Projecting Avian Response to Linked Changes in Groundwater 

and Riparian Floodplain Vegetation along a Dryland River: a Scenario Analysis. 

Ecohydrology 4: 130–142.

Browning, M.R. 1993. Comments on the taxonomy of Empidonax traillii (willow flycatcher). 

Western Birds 24:241-257. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2013. Agency Review of the Internal Working Draft of the 

Rosemont Copper Company Draft Biological Opinion. 8 pp. 

Cardinal S.N. and E. H. Paxton. 2005. Home range, movement, and habitat use of the 

southwestern willow flycatcher at Roosevelt Lake, AZ – 2004. U.S. Geological Survey 

Report to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Phoenix, AZ. 

Drost, C.A., M.K. Sogge, and E. Paxton. 1998. Preliminary Diet Study of the Endangered 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Report to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. U.S.G.S. 

Biological Resources Division/Colorado Plateau Res. Station/N. Arizona University. 26 

pp.

Drost, C.A., E.H. Paxton, M.K. Sogge, and M.J. Whitfield. 2003. Food habits of southwestern 

willow flycatchers during the nesting season in M.K. Sogge, B.E. Kus, S.J. Sferra and 

M.J. Whitfield (eds). Ecology and Conservation of the Willow Flycatcher. Cooper 

Ornithological Society, Studies in Avian Biology, No. 26.

Durst, S.L. 2004. Southwestern willow flycatcher potential prey base and diet in native and 

exotic habitat. Masters Thesis. Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ. 

Durst, S.L., M.K. Sogge, H.C. English, H.A. Walker, B.E. Kus, and S.J. Sferra. 2008.

Southwestern willow flycatcher breeding site and territory summary – 2007. U.S. 

Geological Survey, Colorado Plateau Research Station, Flagstaff, AZ. 
404

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Ellis, L.A., D.M. Weddle, S.D. Stump, H.C. English, and A.E. Graber. 2008. Southwestern 

willow flycatcher final survey and monitoring report. Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, Research Technical Guidance Bulletin #10, Phoenix, Arizona, USA. 

English, H.C., A.E. Graber, S.D. Stump, H.E. Telle, and L.A. Ellis. 2006. Southwestern willow 

flycatcher 2005 survey and nest monitoring report. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife 

Program Technical Report 248. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 

Finch, D.M. and S.H. Stoleson, eds. 2000. Status, ecology, and conservation of the southwestern 

willow flycatcher. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-60. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 131 p. 

Graber, A.E., D.W. Weddle, H.C. English, S.D. Stump, H.E. Telle, and L.A Ellis. 2007.

Southwestern willow flycatcher 2006 survey and nest monitoring report. Nongame and 

Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 249. Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, Phoenix, AZ. 

Hatten, J.R. and C.E. Paradzick. 2003. A multiscaled model of southwestern willow flycatcher 

breeding habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management 67:774-788.

Horton, J.L., Kolb, T.E., and Hart, S.C. 2001. Responses of riparian trees to interannual variation 

in ground water depth in a semi-arid river basin: Plant, Cell and Environment: 24: 293-

304.

Howell, S.N.G. and S. Webb. 1995. A guide to the birds of Mexico and northern Central 

America. Oxford University Press, New York, New York. 851 pp. 

Hubbard, J.P. 1987. The Status of the Willow Flycatcher in New Mexico. Endangered Species 

Program, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Sante Fe, New Mexico. 29 pp. 

Institute for Bird Populations. 2006. MAPS breeding status information. Available at: 

http://www.birdpop.org/nbii2006/status/statusresults.asp?strStation=12334. Accessed 

during the preparation of the Rosemont Copper Project Biological Assessment on 

January 9, 2012. 

Johnson, K.L. 1992. Management for water quality on rangelands through best management 

practices: The Idaho approach. Pages 415-469 in Naiman, R.J. ed. Watershed 

Management; Balancing Sustainability and Environmental Changes, Springer-Verlag, 

NY.

Leenhouts, J. M., Stromberg, J. C., and R. L. Scott. 2006. Hydrologic requirements of and 

consumptive ground-water use by riparian vegetation along the San Pedro River, 

Arizona. Reston, VA. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005–

5163, 154 pp. 
405

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Lichivar, R.W. and J.S. Wakely. 2004. Review of ordinary high water make indicators for 

delineating arid streams in the southwestern United States. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Engineer Research and Development Center Technical Report 04-1. 

McCabe, R.A. 1001. The Little Green Bird. Rusty Rock Press. Madison, WI. 171 pp. 

McLeod, M.A., T.J. Koronkiewicz, B.T. Brown, and S.W. Carothers. 2005. Southwestern willow 

flycatcher surveys, demography, and ecology along the lower Colorado River and 

tributaries. Annual report submitted U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder City, NV, by 

SWCA Environmental Consultants, Flagstaff, AZ. 

Merritt, D.M. and H.L. Bateman. 2012. Linking stream flow and groundwater to avian habitat in 

a desert riparian system. Ecological Applications 22(7): 1973–1988.

Montgomery and Associates Inc. 2010. Revised Report: Groundwater Flow Modeling Conducted 

for Simulation of Proposed Rosemont Pit Dewatering and Post-closure, Vol. 1: Text and 

Tables. Prepared for Rosemont Copper. Tucson, Arizona: Montgomery and Associates 

Inc. August 30. 

Myers, T. 2010. Technical Memorandum: Updated Groundwater Modeling Report Proposed 

Rosemont Open Pit Mining Project. Prepared for Pima County and Pima County 

Regional Flood Control District. Reno, Nevada. April 21.

Owen, J.C. and M.K. Sogge. 2002. Physiological condition of southwestern willow flycatchers 

in native and saltcedar habitats. U.S. Geological Survey report to the Arizona Department 

of Transportation. 

Paxton, E.H. 2012. Personal Communication via electronic mail with G. Beatty of Arizona 

Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the 

breeding/territorial status of a southwestern willow flycatcher captured in Empire Gulch. 

Paxton, E., J. Owen, and M. Sogge. 2010. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher response to 

catastrophic habitat loss. Report by the USGS Colorado Plateau Research Station, 

Flagstaff, AZ. 

Paxton, E., K. Day, T Olson, P. Wheeler, M. MacLeod, T. Koronkiewicz, and S. O’Meara. 2010.

Tamarisk biocontrol impacts occupied breeding habitat of the endangered southwestern 

willow flycatcher. Poster presentation at Tamarisk Coalition annual conference. Reno, 

NV.

Paxton, E.H., M.K. Sogge, S.L. Durst, T.C. Theimer, and J.R. Hatten. 2007. The ecology of the 

southwestern willow flycatcher in central Arizona—a 10-year synthesis report. U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1381, 143 pp. 
406

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Peterson, R.T. 1990. A field guide to western birds. Third edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 

Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.

Phillips, A.R. 1948. Geographic variation in Empidonax traillii. The Auk 65:507-514. 

Phillips, A.R.. J. Marshall, and G. Monson. 1964. The Birds of Arizona. University of Arizona 

Press, Tucson, Arizona. 212 pp.

Prescott, D.R.C. and A.L.A. Middleton. 1988. Feeding-time minimization and the territorial 

behavior of the willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii). Auk 105:17-28. 

Radke, M. 2011. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Survey Form: Cienega Creek. Survey results 

submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Phoenix, AZ.

Ridgely, R.S. and G. Tudor. 1994. The Birds of South America: Suboscine Passerines. 

University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas. 

Rodden, I. 2010. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Survey Form: Cienega Creek. Survey results 

submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Phoenix, AZ.

Rodden, I. 2011. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Survey Form: Cienega Creek. Survey results 

submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Phoenix, AZ.

Rodden, I. 2012. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Survey Form: Cienega Creek. Survey results 

submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Phoenix, AZ. 

Rothstein, S.I., J. Verner, S. Ernest. 1984. Radio-tracking confirms a unique diurnal pattern of 

spatial occurrence in the parasitic brown-headed cowbird. Ecology. 65: 77-88.

Scott, M.L., P.B. Shafroth, and G.T. Auble. 1999. Responses of riparian cottonwoods to alluvial 

water table declines. Environmental Management 23: 347-358. 

Skovlin, J.M. 1984. Impacts of grazing on wetland and riparian habitat: A review of our 

knowledge. Pages 1001-1103 in Developing Strategies for Rangeland Management, 

National Research Council/Nat’l. Acad. of Sciences, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. 

Smith, A.B., C.E. Paradzick, A.A. Woodward, P.E.T. Dockens, and T.D. McCarthey. 2002. 

Southwestern willow flycatcher 2001 survey and nest monitoring report. Nongame and 

Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report #191. Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, Phoenix, Arizona. 

Sogge, M.K. and T.J. Tibbitts. 1994. Distribution and Status of the Southwestern Willow 

Flycatcher along the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon-1994. Summary Report. 

National Biological Survey, Colorado Plateau Research Station/Northern Arizona 

University and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Phoenix, Arizona. 37 pp. 
407

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Sogge, M.K., R. M. Marshall, S. J. Sferra, and T. J. Tibbitts. 1997. A southwestern willow 

flycatcher survey protocol and breeding ecology summary. National Park 

Service/Colorado Plateau Res. Station/N. Arizona University, Tech. Rept. NRTR-97/12. 

37 pp.

Sogge, M.K. and R.M. Marshall. 2000. A survey of current breeding habitats. Chapter 5 in D. 

Finch and S. Stoleson (eds.) Status, ecology, and conservation of the southwestern willow 

flycatcher. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Albuquerque, NM. 

Sogge, M.K., E.H. Paxton, and A.A Tudor. 2005. Saltcedar and southwestern willow flycatchers: 

lessons from long-term studies in central Arizona. As published on CD ROM in: AguirreBravo, Celedonio, and others. Eds. 2005. Monitoring science and technology symposium: 

unifying knowledge for sustainability in the Western Hemisphere. 2004 September 20-

24; Denver, CO. Proceedings RMRS-P037CD. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

Spencer, J. A., S. J. Sferra, T. E. Corman, J. W. Rourke, and M. W. Sumner. 1996. Arizona 

Partners In Flight 1995 southwestern willow flycatcher survey. Technical Report 97, 

March 1996. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix. 69 pp. 

Stiles, F. G., and A. F. Skutch. 1989. A guide to the birds of Costa Rica. Comstock, Ithaca, New 

York. 364 pp. 

Unitt, P. 1987. Empidonax traillii extimus: An endangered subspecies. Western Birds 18:137-

162.

Stromberg, J.C., Tiller, R., and Richter, B., 1996, Effects of groundwater decline on riparian 

vegetation of semi-arid regions—The San Pedro River, Arizona: Ecological Applications, 

v. 6, p. 113 –131.

SWCA. 2012. Presentation made to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Forest Service to Convey 

Detailed Information Regarding the Seeps, Springs, and Riparian Impacts Analysis in the 

Rosemont EIS, in order to inform the USFWS Section 7 consultation process. November 

12, 2012. 65 pp. 

Tetra Tech. 2010c. Regional Groundwater Flow Model, Rosemont Copper Project. Tetra Tech 

Project No,. 114-320874. Prepared for Rosemont Copper. Tucson, Arizona. November. 

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2000. Tres Rios Feasibility Study 

Environmental Impact Statement. Los Angeles District, Phoenix. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1995. Final rule determining endangered status for the 

southwestern willow flycatcher. Federal Register 60:10694-10715. 
408

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1997a. Final determination of critical habitat for the 

southwestern willow flycatcher. Federal Register 62(140):39129-39146. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1997b. Correction; final determination of critical habitat 

for the southwestern willow flycatcher. Federal Register 62 (161): 44228. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2002. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan, 

Region 2, Albuquerque, NM. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005. Designation of Critical Habitat for the 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher: Final Rule. Federal Register 70 (201): 60886. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005a. Biological opinion on the Forest Service’s 

continued implementation of the land, resource, and management plans for the 11 

southwestern region national forests and grasslands, R2/ES-TE, 02-21-03-F-0366. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2011. Designation of Revised Critical Habitat for the 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher: Proposed Rule. Federal Register 76 (157): 50542. 

Yong, W. and D.M. Finch. 1997. Migration of the willow flycatcher along the middle Rio 

Grande. Wilson Bulletin 109:253-268. 

Mexican Spotted Owl (see Appendix A) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2012. Final Recovery Plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl 

(Strix occidentalis lucida), First Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Albuquerque, 

New Mexico, USA. 
409

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Appendix A: Concurrence for the Mexican Spotted Owl 

Species Information 

A complete description of the biology of the Mexican spotted owl appears in our November 

2012 Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan, First Revision (FWS 2012). The rangewide status of 

the species appears in our April 11, 2013, Biological Opinion on the Aravaipa Ecosystem 

Management Plan (File number 02EAAZ00-2012-F-0282). 

Background for Determination of Effects: 

The action area for this analysis is based on: (1) the area of the mine footprint; (2) areas outside 

the mine footprint that may be affected by noise, dust, light pollution, and other mining 

activities; (3) all areas for which mining activity may affect groundwater and surface water; and 

(4) other areas outside the footprint that are related to mining activity, such as road 

modifications, power lines, and pipelines (i.e., connected actions). The action area totals 

approximately 145,513 acres, including the footprints of the Barrel Alternative and utility 

corridor. The action area is located primarily in Pima County, but also encompasses a small 

portion of Santa Cruz County; 65,215 acres within the action area are on Forest Service and 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands, and the remaining 80,298 acres within the action 

area on Arizona State Land Department State Trust land and private land. The larger action area 

was drawn to consider the impacts of noise, dust, light pollution, groundwater drawdown, and 

surface water reduction. 

There are three Mexican spotted owl protected activity centers (PACs) adjacent to the larger 

action area (see Table MSO-1, below). The project area does not contain Mexican spotted owl 

nest/roost habitat as defined in the Recovery Plan for the Mexican spotted owl (FWS 2012). The 

Coronado National Forest compiled all known Mexican spotted owl locations from the Santa 

Rita Mountains, and there are no records of owls within the action area. The closest occupied 

area is the Ramanote Canyon PAC, which is located approximately 0.7 mile to the westsouthwest. The larger action area includes approximately 430 acres of critical habitat unit BR-W12.

Table MSO-1. Mexican spotted owl PACs near the action area for the Rosemont Project.

PAC Name (Number) Distance from Project 

Area

Distance from Action Area

Ramanote Canyon (#0502019) 4.8 miles 0.7 mile

Sawmill Canyon (#0502013) 5.6 miles 1.3 miles

Florida Spring (#0503001) 6.4 miles 2.5 miles
410

Mr. Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor 

Determination of Effects: 

We concur with your determination that the proposed action may affect, but will not likely 

adversely affect, the Mexican spotted owl. We base our concurrence on the following: 

 The proposed action will not directly affect the key habitat components of Mexican 

spotted owl nest/roost habitat. The project and action areas contain desert, semi-desert 

grasslands, and Madrean encinal woodlands, which are not habitats used by Mexican 

spotted owls for nesting and/or roosting (FWS 2012). 

 The project area is located approximately 4.8 miles northeast of the nearest PAC and the 

action area is located approximately 0.7 mile northeast of the nearest PAC. Therefore, the 

project will not result in noise disturbance to Mexican spotted owls during the breeding 

season (March 1 through August 31). 

 The aforementioned level of effects are insignificant and discountable and will not reduce 

the potential to achieve recovery of the Mexican spotted owl. 

 There is no Mexican spotted owl critical habitat in the action area; therefore, none will be 

affected.
G. Summary of Response to Comments on 

the DEIS

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project G-1 

G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Comments provided on the DEIS and the Forest Service responses to those comments are provided 

on a compact disc (CD) included with this document.

Introduction and Overview

This document is a summary of public and agency comment received by the Coronado National 

Forest (the Coronado) regarding the Rosemont Copper Mine Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(DEIS), and responses to those comments prepared by the Coronado. The comment period was 

October 11, 2011 to January 31, 2012, with additional extensions given to several agencies. 

The Coronado received 24,845 submissions, including transcripts of oral comments from formal 

public meetings and telephone calls, letters, form letters, and petitions. These submissions have been 

analyzed using a process called content analysis, described below.

Content Analysis Process

Content analysis is a method of eliciting meanings, ideas, and other information from written text, 

pictures, or audio or video messages. The goals of the content analysis process are to:

• ensure that every comment is considered,

• identify the concerns raised by all respondents,

• represent the breadth and depth of the public’s viewpoints and concerns as fairly as possible, 

and

• present those concerns in such a way as to facilitate the Forest Service’s consideration of 

comments

A specific method of content analysis has been developed and refined by the NEPA Services Group, 

a specialized Forest Service unit, for analyzing public comment on federal land and resource 

management agency projects and proposals. This method employs both qualitative and quantitative 

approaches. It is a systematic process designed to provide specific demographic information, a list of 

respondents, identify individual comments by topic in each submission, evaluate similar comments 

from different submissions, and summarize like comments as specific concern statements, referred to 

as Public Concern Statements. The process also provides a relational database capable of reporting 

various types of information while linking comments to original letters.

Through the content analysis process, the content analysis team strived to identify all relevant issues, 

not just those represented by the majority of respondents. The breadth, depth, and rationale of each 

comment are especially important. In addition to capturing relevant factual input, analysts tried to 

capture the relative emotion and strength of public sentiment behind particular viewpoints. 

The issues identified during content analysis range in nature from the strictly procedural to the 

technically specific. Public comment on these issues demonstrates the interest, feelings, and concerns 

the public has regarding the management of National Forest lands, the role of mining in the 

Coronado, the NEPA process for this project, and how the public and other agencies feel the Forest 

Service should best analyze and address the environmental, social, and economic issues presented in 

the DEIS. The content analysis team prepared a summary report of the comments received on the 

DEIS. The summary report in its entirety is contained in the Rosemont Copper Project Record. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project G-3 
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Summary of Public Comment

This portion of the appendix to the Rosemont FEIS is a summary of the detailed responses that are 

contained in the Comment Response database. During content analysis, every submission was 

reviewed, and specific comments identified. Those comments were then assigned one or more codes 

based upon the subject matter of the comment. Comments that addressed similar topics were grouped, 

and a “Public Concern Statement” written that described the overall topic of the associated 

comments.

This process resulted in 316 Public Concern Statements. The Public Concern Statements as well as 

the associated comments were reviewed by the Coronado ID Team and their consultant. Responses 

were prepared for every Public Concern Statement. The associated comments were reviewed, and 

separate responses prepared when the response to the Public Concern Statement did not respond to 

the comment in its entirety. These detailed responses to each concern statement and associated 

comments are contained within the comment database, which is contained in the Rosemont Project 

Record, and has also been made available in an electronic format as part of the appendix to the 

Rosemont FEIS. Using the electronic files included in the appendix, commenters are able to identify 

which Public Concern Statements were applied to their comment letter, read the responses to those 

Public Concern Statements, and read any further responses applied specifically to each of their 

individual comments. These files are provided in searchable PDF format to allow commenters to 

search for names and key words.

This summary document contains representative Public Concern Statements and the responses 

prepared by the Coronado and its consultant. While not all 316 public concern statements are listed, 

the intent is to include those that are representative of other similar statements and responses, without 

resorting to the electronic files that contain all Public Concern Statements, responses, and comments. 

The organization of this appendix follows the organization of Chapters 1 through 3 of the EIS.

Two important agency comment letters were received after the close of the public comment period on 

January 31, 2012. A comment letter from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was received on 

February 21, 2012, and a comment letter from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was received on 

April 4, 2012. As these were received after close of the public comment period, comments from these 

letters are not incorporated into the comment database or the general Public Concern Statements and 

responses. However, these comments were significant in terms of guiding the analysis and 

preparation of the FEIS. Specific responses to these letters are included as a separate section at the 

end of this Summary.

G-4 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Chapter 1

Purpose of and Need for Action

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should The requirement for a discussion of "purpose and need" in an environmental 

broaden the purpose and need to impact statement under the CEQ regulations is to "briefly specify the underlying 

evaluate how the copper from this purpose and need to which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives 

project would contribute to the needs including the proposed action." 40 C.F.R. §1502.13. In the case of the Rosemont 

of the United States. Copper Project, the Forest Service is responding to a preliminary mine plan of 

operation that was submitted by Rosemont Copper. The lead agency -- the federal 

agency proposing to take an action -- has the authority for and responsibility to 

define the "purpose and need" for purposes of NEPA analysis. This is consistent 

with the lead agency's responsibilities throughout the NEPA process for the 

"scope, objectivity, and content of the entire statement or of any other 

responsibility" under NEPA. 42 U.S.C. §4332(D); see also, 40 C.F.R. §§1501.5, 

1506.5. The Forest Service has reviewed the Purpose of and Need for Action 

statement and determined that is appropriate for this project.

Decision Framework

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to move forward, 

because the project is not compatible 

with the Coronado National Forest’s 

mission, directives, and multiple use 

mandate.

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to move forward, 

because national forests and 

neighboring federal lands are the 

people’s land and a major public 

investment, and should be protected for 

public use.

As a Federal agency, the Forest Service must follow federal laws and regulations 

as they currently exist. Under current mining laws, Forest Service legal authority 

regarding mining proposals is limited. As clearly stated in the DEIS and FEIS, 

although the Forest Service may reasonably regulate mining activities to protect 

surface resources, there are statutory and constitutional limits to its discretion. 

The Forest Service may reject an unreasonable Mine Plan of Operation but 

cannot categorically prohibit mining or deny reasonable and legal mineral 

operations under the mining laws.. The Forest Service works towards achieving 

its mission of Caring for the Land and Serving People, while adhering to the laws 

and regulations that are passed by Congress and signed by the President. When 

the mission of the agency and federal laws conflict, the Forest Service has no 

option other than following the law. The Coronado considered a number of 

alternatives that would remove or reduce tailings and waste rock on National 

Forest Service lands. However, analysis indicated that all such alternatives were 

not feasible for technical, economic, and environmental reasons. Refer to Chapter 

2 of the FEIS for further detail.

The Coronado National Forest should 

pursue alternative energy sources 

rather than a copper mine.

Comments linked to this concern statement are matters of broad public policy and 

well outside the scope of the Rosemont Copper Project. The authority to change 

national energy policy lies with the President and Congress.

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to go forward, 

because the copper will be exported 

rather than used domestically.

Augusta Resources owns the mineral rights to the ore body they are proposing to 

mine. The Forest Service cannot deny access to their ore body because they are 

registered in Canada, or because they may sell their products outside of the 

United States. Rosemont or any successor company will be required by law to 

follow all requirements set forth in the FEIS and Record of Decision, and to 

comply with other applicable federal laws and regulations. The Coronado will 

ensure that monitoring and reporting occurs in order to ensure that operations are 

occurring according to the FEIS and Record of Decision. Bonding is the 

mechanism that is used to assure that reclamation activities will be carried out. 

Bonding instruments will ensure that funds for critical reclamation will occur 

even if the mining company declares bankruptcy.

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project G-5 
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to go forward, 

because of general ecological or 

environmental impacts.

As a Federal agency, the Forest Service must follow federal laws and regulations 

as they currently exist, which includes addressing potential impacts of the 

proposed project in an EIS. The DEIS described both the benefits of the proposal, 

as well as the impacts. Based upon comments on the DEIS, a number of 

mitigation measures were added, and analysis was updated. A review of the FEIS 

will indicate that the Rosemont Preferred Alternative will have detrimental 

impacts, some of them significant, as well as beneficial effects. As stated in 

Chapter 1 of both the DEIS and FEIS, although the Forest Service may 

reasonably regulate mining activities to protect surface resources, there are 

statutory and constitutional limits to its discretion. The Forest Service may reject 

an unreasonable Mine Plan of Operation but cannot categorically prohibit mining 

or deny reasonable and legal mineral operations under the mining laws. The FEIS 

describes impacts that could occur from implementation of the proposed mine. 

It is also important to understand that Augusta Resources owns the mineral rights 

to the ore body they are proposing to mine. The Forest Service cannot deny 

access to their ore body because they are registered in Canada, or because they 

may sell their products outside of the United States. Rosemont or any successor 

company will be required by law to follow all requirements set forth in the FEIS 

and Record of Decision, and to comply with the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, 

Endangered Species Act, and a myriad of other applicable federal laws and 

regulations. The Coronado will ensure that monitoring and reporting occurs in 

order to ensure that operations are occurring according the FEIS and Record of 

Decision. Bonding is the mechanism that is used to assure that reclamation 

activities will be carried out. Bonding instruments will ensure that funds for 

critical reclamation will occur even if the event that the mining company does not 

meet their reclamation obligations.

The Coronado National Forest should 

enforce costly permitting restrictions as 

a way to restrict Rosemont Copper 

Company's development and force 

them to sell their land to the Coronado 

National Forest.

The Forest Service does not have the authority to force Rosemont to sell their 

land to the Coronado. Forest Service legal authority regarding mining proposals 

is limited. As clearly stated in the DEIS and FEIS, although the Forest Service 

may reasonably regulate mining activities to protect surface resources, there are 

statutory and constitutional limits to its discretion. The Forest Service may reject 

an unreasonable Mine Plan of Operation but cannot categorically prohibit mining 

or deny reasonable and legal mineral operations under the mining laws. The 

Forest Service is required to assess and disclose potential social and 

environmental impacts in an EIS, and can only require reasonable modifications 

to mine plans of operation and mitigation measures.

The Coronado National Forest should 

prohibit the mine and compensate the 

Rosemont Copper Company for the 

value of their claim.

Compensating Rosemont Copper for the value of their claims is contrary to 

Forest Service national policy, and would take congressional action. It is beyond 

the scope of this decision to be made.

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to move forward, 

because the proposed location is too 

close to a large metropolitan area and 

small rural communities that might be 

impacted by the project.

There is nothing in law or regulation that allows the Forest Service to treat 

projects near metropolitan areas or rural locations differently from any other 

similar project. Federal agencies are required by law and regulation to analyze 

significant issues and disclose environmental and social impacts of proposed 

projects. This analysis is disclosed in the Rosemont Copper Project DEIS, FEIS, 

project record and eventual Record of Decision. Although the Forest Service may 

reasonably regulate mining activities to protect surface resources, there are 

statutory and constitutional limits to its discretion. The Forest Service may reject 

an unreasonable Mine Plan of Operation but cannot categorically prohibit mining 

or deny reasonable and legal mineral operations under the mining laws. 

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to move forward, so 

that environmental and mineral 

resources are preserved for future 

generations.

Many of the comments linked to this concern statement relate to matters of broad 

public policy and are well outside the scope of the Rosemont Copper Project. 

As described in Chapter 1 of the DEIS and FEIS, although the Forest Service 

may reasonably regulate mining activities to protect surface resources, there are 

statutory and constitutional limits to its discretion. The Forest Service may reject 

an unreasonable Mine Plan of Operation but cannot categorically prohibit mining 

or deny reasonable and legal mineral operations under the mining laws.

G-6 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper EIS to 

move forward because the 1872 

Mining Law is outdated and needs to 

be revised.

The authority to modify the Mining Law of 1872 lies with the United States 

Congress. As a Federal agency, the Forest Service must follow federal laws and 

regulations as they currently exist. Under current mining laws, Forest Service 

legal authority regarding mining proposals is limited. As clearly stated in the 

DEIS and FEIS, Although the Forest Service may reasonably regulate mining 

activities to protect surface resources, there are statutory and constitutional limits 

to its discretion. The Forest Service may reject an unreasonable Mine Plan of 

Operation but cannot categorically prohibit mining or deny reasonable and legal 

mineral operations under the mining laws..

The Coronado National Forest should 

require Rosemont Copper Company to 

purchase the surrounding landowners’ 

parcels that will be affected by the 

project.

The Forest Service does not have the legal authority to require Rosemont Copper 

to purchase private lands that will be affected by the project.

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to move forward, 

because long-term environmental 

impacts will outweigh any short-term 

economic benefits

It is important to understand the Forest Service role in terms of decision space 

and legal sideboards regarding the Rosemont Copper Project. The Forest Service 

legal authority regarding mining proposals is limited. As stated in the DEIS and 

FEIS, Although the Forest Service may reasonably regulate mining activities to 

protect surface resources, there are statutory and constitutional limits to its 

discretion. The Forest Service may reject an unreasonable Mine Plan of 

Operation but cannot categorically prohibit mining or deny reasonable and legal 

mineral operations under the mining laws. The Forest Service is required to 

assess and disclose potential social and environmental impacts in an EIS and can 

require reasonable modifications to mine plans of operation and mitigation 

measures. The Socioeconomic impact analysis has been updated since release of 

the DEIS. It acknowledges that all action alternatives would impact the quality of 

life or local residents and communities, and could result in loss of jobs in some 

aspects of the economy, such as tourism. A number of other analyses were also 

updated, and additional mitigation and monitoring measures identified. The 

Forest is required to disclose environmental impacts and benefits in the NEPA 

document and consider those in the final decision. Impacts and benefits of the 

proposed project have been analyzed using the best information available, and the 

results disclosed in the FEIS.

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to move forward, 

because of adverse impacts to multiple 

(environmental, social, and/or cultural) 

resources

The National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations require 

federal agencies such as the Forest Service to analyze and disclose both positive 

and negative impacts of proposals such as the Rosemont Copper Project, and to 

consider these impacts in making a decision on whether and how to implement 

such a project. The resource topics discussed in these comments have been 

addressed in the FEIS, and the results will be considered in the final decision 

which will be described in the Record of Decision. The Rosemont Copper Project 

is a large and complex proposal that will have both beneficial and detrimental 

effects. The DEIS described both the benefits of the proposal, as well as the 

impacts. In response to comments on the DEIS, a number of mitigation and 

monitoring measures were added, and several analyses updated. The resources 

whose analyses have been updated include socioeconomics (including impacts to 

tourism), transportation, surface and groundwater, air quality, dark skies, 

biological resources (consultation with Fish and Wildlife Service regarding listed 

species has been completed), and cultural resources (consultation with State 

Historic Preservation Officer and Tribes has been completed). Cumulative effects 

analysis has been reviewed and updated. The FEIS concludes that the Rosemont 

Preferred Alternative will have detrimental impacts, some of them significant, as 

well as beneficial effects. As stated in Chapter 1 of both the DEIS and FEIS, 

Although the Forest Service may reasonably regulate mining activities to protect 

surface resources, there are statutory and constitutional limits to its discretion. 

The Forest Service may reject an unreasonable Mine Plan of Operation but 

cannot categorically prohibit mining or deny reasonable and legal mineral 

operations under the mining laws. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project G-7
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Coordination with Other Agencies and Governments

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

meet face-to-face with the Hopi tribe as 

part of the government-to-government 

tribal consultation process.

The Forest has a long-term government-to-government consulting relationship 

with the tribe and the Forest has met multiple times with the Hopi Tribe 

concerning this project. The Hopi Tribe has been routinely updated on all 

Rosemont-related matters since the 2006 initial letter from the Forest to the 

tribes, and has been invited to participate in on-site tours and joint tribal 

consultation meetings.

The Coronado National Forest should 

provide sufficient opportunities for 

coordination and consultation with 

appropriate federal, state, and local 

entities—particularly those with 

special expertise or who have 

requested cooperating agency status—

and should explain in the EIS the 

extent of each party's participation in 

that document’s process, and how their 

comments were addressed.

The Coronado has complied with applicable laws and regulations regarding 

coordination and cooperation with federal, state and local entities. Details of the 

coordination process are not appropriate for inclusion in the EIS. However, 

documentation is included in the Project Record.

The Coronado National Forest should 

analyze impacts to military airspace.

The Coronado invited the Air Force to cooperate with them for this NEPA

process. Through this cooperation, the Air Force representative was able to 

describe what would happen with the military training flights. Although the 

flights currently go through airspace near the project, they would simply shift 

flight paths to other airspace and continue.

The Coronado National Forest should 

revise the EIS to address the 

interagency land use agreement 

between the Smithsonian Institution 

and the United States Forest Service.

The land use agreement referenced is an agreement between the Coronado 

National Forest and Smithsonian Institution from 1978 regarding development of 

the Fred Whipple Observatory on Mt. Whipple. Item 3(b) states that the Forest 

Service will exercise administrative responsibility to protect and manage the 

multiple resources of the national forest lands within and adjacent to the 

Withdrawal is a manner compatible with the instrumentation tolerances and 

requirements of the Observatory as determined in consultation with the 

Smithsonian. 'Withdrawal' refers to the land area described in the agreement, 

including Mt. Whipple, which was withdrawn from "all forms of appropriation 

under public land law." This area is located to about 13 miles southwest of the 

proposed mine site. The Forest Service has been closely consulting with the 

Smithsonian regarding potential impacts on this and other observatories in 

southern Arizona. Lighting, dust and other items that could impact the 

observatories have been mitigated to the extent practicable. The Forest Service 

believes that the Rosemont project complies with the 1978 land agreement.

The Coronado National Forest should 

clarify which agencies are responsible 

for project permits and approvals, and 

how those agency decisions would 

affect Coronado National Forest 

approval or disapproval of the 

Rosemont Copper Company project, as 

well as how those processes dovetail 

with this National Environmental 

Policy Act process.

The major permits and authorizations that may be required for the Rosemont 

project are summarized in Table 3 of Chapter 2 of the FEIS. The agencies that 

have jurisdiction over issuance of these permits are identified. The Permits and 

Permitting Processes section of Chapter 2 of the FEIS lists the process that will 

be followed before implementation of the project can commence on National 

Forest System lands. Each resource section in Chapter 3 also lists the applicable 

permits and approvals associated with that resource.

G-8 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Involvement

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

schedule and facilitate public meetings 

in an impartial manner that permits full 

participation by the general public, and 

should review comments in a similarly 

impartial manner, documenting all 

comments received and identifying and 

addressing all substantive comments.

The Coronado National Forest should 

listen to the opinions expressed by local 

residents rather than people who do not 

live here and do not fully understand 

the issues facing southern Arizona and 

the Tucson area.

With respect to the DEIS, the Coronado designed a public participation process 

to meet a wide range of public needs. Seven public meetings were scheduled in a 

variety of locations in Tucson and communities within a 30 mile radius of the 

Rosemont Project Area. Six of the meetings consisted of both an informational 

session, where resource specialists were available to provide information and 

answer questions about the Rosemont Copper Project, and a comment session in 

which oral comments could be given and recorded in a public setting. The 

seventh and last public meeting consisted of a comment session only. While the 

Coronado was required to provide 45 days for public review of the DEIS, they 

chose to provide 90 days to allow the public with additional time to review and 

comment on the DEIS. All comment received, including comments that were 

provided in letters, emails, during public comments sessions (oral and written 

comments), and by phone recording have been captured in a database, reviewed 

and addressed by ID Team specialists. 

The Coronado National Forest should 

design a website or electronic 

submission method to permit full and 

ongoing participation during the entire 

public comment period.

A website for the project was created early in the process for the purposes of 

making relevant information readily available to the public. In addition, 

electronic submission of comments was available to the public during both 

scoping and the comment period for the DEIS. There have been a few technical 

glitches with these systems, but they have been short duration and repaired 

rapidly to get the sites up and working quickly. While the Coronado was required 

to provide 45 days for public review of the DEIS, they chose to provide 90 days 

to allow the public with additional time to review and comment on the DEIS. 

There were many other methods of submitting comments, including by phone, 

mail, in person, or at one of the many public meetings.

The Coronado National Forest should 

reschedule and/or extend the public 

comment period to allow sufficient 

time for review of both the 

multivolume EIS and accompanying 

reports that have not yet been finalized.

The Coronado granted a 90 day comment period initially and then granted an 

additional extension from January 18 to January 31 because of some technical 

issues receiving email comments. Both of these timelines exceed the standards 

set forth in regulations and policy. Although the DEIS was voluminous, there 

were numerous public meetings held to assist the public in understanding the 

analysis and impacts and provide comment.

The Coronado National Forest should 

ensure that all scoping comments have 

been adequately addressed, and that 

commenters are aware of the response.

The intent of scoping is to identify issues associated with the Proposed Action 

that will subsequently be used to focus analysis and develop alternatives. 

A screening process is typically used by interdisciplinary teams to identify 

comments that are not relevant to the proposal at hand; combine relevant 

comments that are the same or similar; and use these comments to develop the 

issues that will then drive the analysis. Tens of thousands of comments were 

received during the scoping period. All scoping comments were reviewed and 

considered by the Coronado interdisciplinary team. The issues that are described 

in Chapter 2 of the DEIS and FEIS are the direct result of the Coronado's 

screening process, which is documented in detail in the project record.

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project G-9 
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Chapter 2

Alternatives Considered in Detail

Alternative 1 – No Action

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

revise the No Action Alternative 

analysis of all resources to incorporate 

changing environmental conditions 

and regional trends, private land 

development, and to aggregate 

“future” baseline conditions and 

reasonably foreseeable actions 

identified in local or regional public 

policy documents.

The No Action alternative has been updated in the FEIS to address the items 

mentioned in the concern statement. Please refer to Chapter 2 for a description of 

the No Action alternative, and the various sections of Chapter 3 for a discussion of 

the effects of implementing the No Action alternative.

The Coronado National Forest should 

give true consideration to selection of 

the No Action Alternative, because it 

is required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act, and is the 

only way to consider public comment 

in any meaningful way.

As the lead federal agency, the Forest Service is obligated to comply with all laws 

and regulations that apply to the Rosemont Copper project, including the National 

Environmental Policy Act. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended requires only that major Federal actions significantly affecting the 

quality of the human environment include "alternatives to the proposed action" 

(42 USC 4332 Section 102(C)(iii)). CEQ regulations require that agencies 

"Include the alternative of no action" (40 CFR 1502.14(d)). Although the Forest 

Service may reasonably regulate mining activities to protect surface resources, 

there are statutory and constitutional limits to its discretion. The Forest Service 

may reject an unreasonable Mine Plan of Operation but cannot categorically 

prohibit mining or deny reasonable and legal mineral operations under the mining 

laws.

Action Alternatives – 2 through 6

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

reevaluate the space requirements of 

the proposed action.

The Coronado and its contractors have reviewed the engineering regarding the 

footprint of the entire mining operation for the proposed action and all action 

alternatives. The areas of mine footprint, perimeter fence, access roads and 

utility corridors depicted in the FEIS are based on the best available information.

The Coronado National Forest should 

improve the range of alternatives to 

address resource concerns and 

disclose differences between 

alternatives better in the EIS.

CEQ guidance on range of alternatives is provided in the document NEPA’s 

Forty Most Asked Questions. The phrase "range of alternatives" refers to the 

alternatives discussed in environmental documents. It includes all reasonable 

alternatives, which must be rigorously explored and objectively evaluated, as 

well as those other alternatives, which are eliminated from detailed study with a 

brief discussion of the reasons for eliminating them. Reasonable alternatives 

include those that are practical or feasible from the technical and economic 

standpoint and using common sense, rather than simply desirable from the 

standpoint of the applicant. Whether an alternative is “reasonable” also depends 

on whether it would fulfill the purpose of, and need for, the proposed action. 

In addition to the alternatives that were considered in detail in the DEIS and 

FEIS, a number of other alternatives, and alternative themes and components 

were considered by the Forest Service for detailed study in the EIS process. 

Based upon a review of these alternatives, themes and components, the 

responsible official determined that they were not practical, feasible or 

reasonable and eliminated them from detailed study. Chapter 2 of the FEIS 

contains a brief discussion of these alternatives, as is required by 40 CFR 

1502.14 (a) and the FEIS appropriately discloses impacts of the alternatives that 

were carried forward through the environmental review process.

G-10 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

select the least environmentally 

damaging practicable alternative.

A Forest Service preferred alternative has been identified in the FEIS. 

Identification of the environmentally preferable alternative and the alternative 

selected for implementation, along with any additional requirements that may be 

included in that decision, is described in the Record of Decision, along with a 

description of the rationale for that decision.

The Coronado National Forest should

clarify the boundary of proposed 

project and provide additional facility 

descriptions in the plan of operations.

This comment was specifically made on the Executive Summary. The Executive 

Summary was written to provide an overview of the project, alternatives and 

analyses. Further details are provided in the actual EIS text. The analysis area 

varies by resource area and is described within each resource section of Chapter 

3 of the FEIS.

The Coronado National Forest should 

address the feasibility of the dry stack 

method for minimizing project 

impacts and alternatives if the process 

fails.

The Forest Service considers the information supporting the Mine Plan of 

Operation to be sufficiently accurate to address the proposal in accordance with 

federal law and regulation. The air quality analysis has been updated for the 

FEIS. Modeling protocols were coordinated with the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency and other cooperating agencies. In response to comments on 

the DEIS, a number of mitigation and monitoring measures were added, and 

several analyses updated. The updated analysis indicates that all air quality 

thresholds set under the Clean Air Act and other laws, regulations, policies, and 

plans would be met by the preferred alternative. Full analysis of the water use of 

the proposed mine and the impact of the proposed mine on availability of water 

in both the Santa Cruz Basin and the Davidson Canyon/Cienega Basin is 

included in the FEIS (Chapter 3, Groundwater Quantity). This includes the 

current understanding of the aquifers in the area, water budgets, and existing and 

reasonably foreseeable uses of these aquifer

The Coronado National Forest should 

provide more information on 

geomorphic land design.

The Coronado did further explore geomorphic land design concepts and applied 

these concepts to the Barrel Alternative, as practicable. This design is further 

described in Chapter 2 and the full effects analysis is described in Chapter 3.

Utilities Electrical Transmission Line and Water Supply Line

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

adopt the Preferred Route and 

Alternative 1 for the transmission line 

route.

In May 2012, the Arizona Corporation Commission voted unanimously to allow 

the transmission lines to serve Rosemont Copper Project, thus granting a 

Certificate of Environmental Compatibility for the Tucson Electric Power 

Transmission Line Project. They selected the Preferred Route for implementation, 

which largely follows existing infrastructure.

The Coronado National Forest should 

analyze the economic and 

environmental impacts associated 

with utilities required for the project 

and describe appropriate mitigation to 

reduce those impacts.

Power line siting is the responsibility of the public utility (Tucson Electric Power) 

under the oversight of the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC). Mitigation 

measures such as pole surface type have been considered as part of the power line 

siting process by TEP and the Rosemont Copper Company. The Forest Service 

generally does not have the authority to require implementation of mitigation 

measures on land outside of the National Forest System.

The USFS should identify the source 

of electricity for the project and 

analyze the impacts of generating that 

electricity.

It is not possible for the Forest Service to determine the source of electrical power 

that will power the Rosemont project. Tucson Electric Power Company will be the 

provider of electricity. Tucson Electric Power Company engages in the generation, 

transmission, and distribution of electricity in Arizona. The company generates 

electricity through coal, gas, oil, and solar facilities. It serves 403,000 retail 

electric customers in a 1,155 square mile area in southeastern Arizona. In addition, 

the company sells electricity to other utilities and power marketing entities in the 

western United States. Where power comes from for a particular customer or use 

is dependent on multiple variables and changes depending on electricity available, 

demand, etc., that cannot be accurately predicted.

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project G-11
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

analyze alternatives that use only 

Central Arizona Project water or 

effluent for mining operations.

Alternate sources for supply water, including the use of effluent or Central 

Arizona Project water, were considered but eliminated from detailed analysis. 

Rosemont Copper Company has secured rights to groundwater from the Arizona 

Department of Water Resources and it is beyond the authority of the Forest to 

require an alternate water source, as described in Chapter 2.

The Coronado National Forest should 

consider other locations for copper 

mining.

The Forest Service considered alternatives that involved mining in other locations. 

These alternatives were eliminated from detailed study. Rosemont Copper owns 

private mineral rights and has a possessory interest for mining purposes in 

unpatented mining claims where the project is proposed. Therefore, the company 

has a legal right to access minerals associated with their claims, and the Forest 

Service is required to consider all proposals that meet the requirements under 36 

CFR 228 Subpart A. The Forest Service lacks the authority to deny Rosemont 

Copper’s proposal if it can be legally permitted. Refer to Chapter 2 of the DEIS 

and FEIS for further detail.

The Coronado National Forest should 

consider a block cave alternative.

The Coronado National Forest should 

consider an alternative that uses 

underground mining or a combination 

of open-pit and underground mining 

techniques.

The Forest Service considered an alternative of mining the ore using shafts and 

adits, but dismissed this alternative from detailed study. The nature of the 

Rosemont Copper Mine oxide and sulfide deposits is such that it is disseminated 

across a wide area underground, unlike minerals deposited along seams. Mining 

using shafts would not allow access to the full ore body. Furthermore, the ore is 

not of sufficient concentration that it would be economically feasible to recover 

the ore using this approach.

The Coronado National Forest should 

consider alternatives for recycling, 

reducing, or using existing copper 

mines.

Recycling and reducing copper use is beyond the scope of the decision to be 

made. Using existing mines was considered but eliminated from consideration 

(see chapter 2 of the FEIS). Augusta Resources owns the mineral rights to the ore 

body they are proposing to mine. Although the Forest Service may reasonably 

regulate mining activities to protect surface resources, there are statutory and 

constitutional limits to its discretion. The Forest Service may reject an 

unreasonable Mine Plan of Operation but cannot categorically prohibit mining or 

deny reasonable and legal mineral operations under the mining laws.

The Coronado National Forest should 

consider a continuous, complete, or 

partial backfill alternative, and 

provide more information about the 

alternative in the EIS.

In response to public and agency comments on this topic, the Forest Service took a 

hard look at the feasibility of pit backfill. After reviewing pertinent information, 

the Forest Service determined that neither full nor partial pit backfill is feasible for 

technical, economic, and environmental reasons. Please refer to Chapter 2 of the 

FEIS for further information.

The Coronado National Forest should 

identify the environmentally preferred 

alternative in the EIS and should 

clarify the basis for that 

determination.

The environmentally preferred alternative will be identified in the Record of 

Decision, as directed in 40 CFR 1505.2(b).

The Coronado National Forest should 

scale down the size of the project or 

limit it to private lands only.

Reducing the size of the project would mean reducing the size of the pit and 

denying Rosemont Copper access to a portion of the ore bodies which they legally 

own. The pit configuration proposed by Rosemont Copper was reviewed by the 

Coronado and their consultants. The proposed pit was deemed appropriately 

configured, in terms of size, to access the oxide and sulfide ore bodies. A reduced 

pit size would limit Rosemont Copper’s ability to fully access all of the minerals 

to which they own valid rights. Reduced pit size was considered but eliminated 

from detailed study by the responsible official (see chapter 2 of the FEIS). While 

the Forest Service may reasonably regulate mining activities to protect surface 

resources, there are statutory and constitutional limits to its discretion. The Forest 

Service may reject an unreasonable Mine Plan of Operation but cannot 

categorically prohibit mining or deny reasonable and legal mineral operations 

under the mining laws.

G-12 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

consider an alternative that uses a 

natural gas pipeline or buried lines 

rather than transmission line.

These alternatives were considered but eliminated from detailed consideration by 

the responsible official. Please refer to Chapter 2 of the FEIS for further details.

The Coronado National Forest should 

consider an alternative that uses 

solution or “future” mining 

techniques. To minimize 

environmental impacts.

A number of mining methods were considered but eliminated from detailed 

consideration (See Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study 

Process paper). Solution mining methods such as in situ leaching and high 

temperature/high pressure leaching were considered but dismissed because they 

are not technically feasible given the specific conditions of the Rosemont mineral 

deposit.

The Coronado National Forest should 

consider an alternative that places 

restrictions on mining schedules and 

production or extends the life of the 

mine to reduce impacts to resources.

The options of lengthening and shortening the mine life were considered and 

subsequently dismissed from detailed consideration by the Responsible Official 

because they were determined to be practically infeasible. Both options would 

affect multiple aspects of mining and production: personnel, mining, processing, 

infrastructure, equipment, operations, onsite and offsite vehicular traffic, and the 

timing of reclamation and closure. Neither modification would affect the ultimate 

size of the open pit, waste rock dumps, or tailings piles, unless changes in 

operating or capital costs affect the mine life reserves, nor would either 

modification affect the total volume of water used or the final viewshed. The plans 

to produce and process the minerals were developed to provide a stable operating 

cost in an economic environment in which copper prices fluctuate. Contemporary 

processing facilities are not designed to be shut down on a daily basis. Forest 

Service Manual 2800 provides direction to the agency for minerals and geology. 

FSM 2817.02 - Objectives states, "In managing the use of the surface and surface 

resources, the Forest Service should attempt to minimize or prevent, mitigate, and 

repair adverse environmental impacts on National Forest System surface and 

cultural resources as a result of lawful prospecting, exploration, mining, and 

mineral processing operations, as well as activities reasonably incident to such 

uses. This should be accomplished by imposition of reasonable conditions which 

do not materially interfere with such operations." Requiring the mining period to 

be longer or shorter than that identified could have substantial impacts to the 

financial aspects of mining operations and is considered to be beyond the 

“reasonable conditions” direction.

The Coronado National Forest should 

provide additional rationale and 

information on how alternatives were 

eliminated from analysis, including 

those suggested by the public during 

scoping.

For alternatives that have been eliminated from detailed study, federal regulations 

state that agencies shall briefly discuss the reasons for their having been 

eliminated from detailed study (40 CFR1502.14). Chapter 2 of the FEIS contains a 

summary of alternatives that were considered but eliminated from detailed study 

by the responsible official. More detailed information regarding the many of the 

alternatives that were eliminated is contained in a document titled, "Alternatives 

Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Consideration" that is contained in the 

project record.

The Coronado National Forest should 

evaluate an alternative that takes 

measures to reduce impacts from the 

waste rock, tailings, and heap leach 

facilities (such as transporting tailings 

and waste rock off-site).

A number of alternative themes and components that could reduce impacts from 

tailings, waste rock and heap leach facilities were considered by the ID team and 

responsible official, but ultimately eliminated from detailed consideration, 

including: mining the ore using shafts and adits; reducing the pit size; in situ 

leaching; high-temperature/high-pressure leaching; configuring the pit to allow 

“continuous” backfill; reconfiguring or relocating the waste rock and tailings 

facilities; relocating waste rock and tailings to existing mines or other areas offforest; avoiding placement in drainages; depositing the tailings on the 

northwestern slope of the Santa Rita Mountains; using a natural backfill 

configuration; and active pit backfill. Federal regulations and agency directives 

allow responsible officials to eliminate alternatives that are not reasonable or 

feasible. The responsible official for the Rosemont Copper Project considered 

these options and decided to eliminate them from detailed study because they were 

determined to be either infeasible or unreasonable. Analysis of heap leach seepage 

has been updated in the Groundwater Quality and Geochemistry section of the 

FEIS.

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project G-13
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

consider an alternative that does not 

require cyanide in processing.

The Rosemont Project does not propose to use cyanide to process its ore.

Forest Plan Consistency 

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

either limit the proposed forest plan 

amendment and other permits to only 

those mining operations analyzed in 

the EIS, or update that document to 

analyze the three additional mining 

operations that would be included 

under the amendment.

There is only one mining proposal considered for this project - the Rosemont 

Copper Project proposal that is described in both the DEIS and FEIS. The Forest 

Plan amendment covers only this proposal. There are no other proposals for 

mining in the immediate Rosemont area at this time. Augusta Resources owns 

mineral resources adjacent to the area proposed for mining in the Rosemont 

Copper Project. Development of these resources is not ripe for inclusion as a 

reasonably foreseeable action in the Rosemont EIS because these mineral 

resources have not been adequately explored to determine economic feasibility 

and basic information such as type of mining, estimates of tailings and waste rock, 

etc. is not available and cannot be determined given current information. While 

further exploration and eventual mining could occur at some unknown time in the 

future, it would require further permitting and NEPA analysis should it involve 

federal lands or resources, including public notice and involvement.

The Coronado National Forest should 

address compliance with the forest 

plan and should not modify that plan 

outside the ongoing revision process 

without an appropriate public 

comment period and a full analysis of 

the entire proposed amendment.

The Coronado National Forest should 

evaluate whether the purpose and need 

necessitates modification of the forest 

plan and whether there are alternatives 

that could eliminate the need for a 

forest plan amendment.

The Forest Service has an obligation to respond to and process permit applications 

such as mine plans of operation. The Rosemont Copper MPO was received in 

2007. As stated in the FEIS, the Coronado is addressing this project at this time in 

order to comply with its statutory obligation to respond to Rosemont Copper’s 

preliminary MPO in a timely manner. The actions proposed in this FEIS are for 

the development of the Rosemont ore deposit owned and/or claimed by Rosemont 

Copper in a manner that does the following: (1) complies with Federal, State, and 

local laws and regulations, (2) reduces adverse environmental impacts on National 

Forest System lands, and (3) is the least environmentally damaging practicable 

alternative in accordance with 40 Code of Federal Regulations 230 as it pertains to 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Rosemont Copper is entitled to conduct 

operations that are reasonably incidental to exploration and development of 

mineral deposits on its mining claims pursuant to U.S. mining laws. For mining 

proposals where the applicant owns private mineral rights, the Forest Service may 

reasonably regulate mining activities to protect surface resources, but there are 

statutory and constitutional limits to its discretion. Although the Forest Service 

may reasonably regulate mining activities to protect surface resources, there are 

statutory and constitutional limits to its discretion. The Forest Service may reject 

an unreasonable Mine Plan of Operation but cannot categorically prohibit mining 

or deny reasonable and legal mineral operations under the mining laws. As 

disclosed in Chapter 1 and 2 of the FEIS, a review indicated the preliminary MPO 

would not comply with the current Coronado Forest Plan. Section 1604 of the US 

Code provides direction on National Forest System land and resource management 

plans. 16 USC 1604 (f) (4) states that Forest Plans can "be amended in any manner 

whatsoever after final adoption after public notice..." and (5) be revised (A) from 

time to time when the Secretary finds conditions in a unit have significantly 

changed, but at least every fifteen years. The Coronado National Forest Plan was 

approved in 1986, twenty-seven years ago. It is currently being revised. When the 

1986 Forest Plan was prepared, a large mine project was not anticipated and the 

Forest Plan is virtually silent on management direction regarding hardrock mining 

proposals. In order to respond to the Rosemont Copper preliminary MPO in a 

timely manner, the Forest Service determined that consideration of a Forest Plan 

amendment was a necessary component of the EIS process. Such an amendment is 

clearly allowable under Section 1604 of the US Code.

G-14 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

NEPA Process

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

ensure that the National Environmental 

Policy Act process is honest, thorough, 

unbiased, and transparent, and that the 

decisions made are sound and have not 

been coerced or influenced by external 

entities. 

The Coronado National Forest should 

allow the Rosemont Copper Company 

project to move forward, because the 

Coronado National Forest and 

Rosemont Copper Company have been 

transparent in the National 

Environmental Policy Act process, and 

the public trusts Rosemont Copper 

Company to do what they say

In determining whether to implement the proposed project, the Forest Service 

must follow the process stipulated in the National Environmental Policy Act and 

its implementing regulations. A discussion of these requirements is contained in 

the FEIS. For a project such as Rosemont, compliance with these laws is complex 

and takes a great deal of data collection, modeling, and interpretation by a wide 

variety of resource specialists. The Coronado is following the mandated process 

and following applicable laws and regulations regarding the Rosemont Copper 

Project. In addition, the Coronado has contracted with a variety of third party 

consulting groups to peer review data and analyses to ensure that the best 

available science is being used. This peer review process is described throughout 

the FEIS. The Forest Service is required to assess the social and environmental 

impacts of the proposal, and consider the results in making its decision. The 

Rosemont DEIS and FEIS have addressed significant issues related to the 

proposed mine and disclosed impacts. The Record of Decision will describe the 

rationale for the decision.

The Coronado National Forest should 

augment the existing cumulative 

impact analysis in the EIS to include an 

expansion of the list of past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable projects 

considered in the area.

The DEIS consideration of reasonably 

foreseeable actions was not consistent 

between resource subsections.

Council of Environmental Quality regulations define cumulative impacts: 

"Cumulative impact" is the impact on the environment which results from the 

incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or nonFederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result 

from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a 

period of time (40 CFR 1508.7). NEPA does not require consideration of every 

conceivable impact. The Forest Service relies on the “reasonably foreseeable” 

element to determine what future actions are included in cumulative effects 

analysis, and to exclude future actions that are speculative or remote. In order to 

analyze the impacts of a future action, there must be some reasonable assurance 

that the action will take place and is not a speculative concept; and that enough 

details exist about the action to enable meaningful impact analysis. The Coronado 

has reviewed known and suggested past, present and reasonably foreseeable 

actions and screened them to identify (1) those that could incrementally 

contribute to impacts resulting from the Rosemont Proposed Action or 

alternatives; and (2) future actions that are reasonably foreseeable. Past, present 

and reasonably foreseeable actions that meet these criteria have been compiled 

into a list and addressed as appropriate in the cumulative effects analyses that are 

described and disclosed in Chapter 3 of the FEIS.

The list of reasonably foreseeable actions and cumulative analysis has been 

updated throughout the FEIS. The resource sections in the FEIS have been 

reviewed to ensure that the consideration of foreseeable actions is consistent and 

appropriate. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project G-15
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

ensure that all data and studies—

including the EIS—are done by 

unbiased contractors with sufficient 

expertise, and should update its list of 

preparers to provide additional 

information on their experience.

The Coronado National Forest should 

ensure that all reports are peer 

reviewed by impartial experts, should 

have mining experts on its internal 

team, and should expand its group of 

consultants to include individual 

experts in fields such as toxic risks to 

health and safety and mine operations 

(including the potential use of a 

citizen's team), to ensure a 

comprehensive and scientifically sound 

analysis.

The Coronado reviewed the qualifications of its contractors and determined that 

they were adequate to provide the professional services requested.

The USFS should prepare a 

supplemental EIS due to the lack of 

compensatory mitigation in the DEIS. 

The Coronado National Forest should 

issue and make available for public 

comment a supplemental EIS, because 

the information contained in the EIS is 

insufficient to satisfactorily analyze 

potential impacts and make an 

informed decision

Compensatory land mitigation has been brought forward by the proponent. It is 

addressed in the FEIS. Federal regulations regarding supplementing an EIS are 

contained at 40 CFR 1502.9: (c) Agencies: Shall prepare supplements to either 

draft or final environmental impact statements if: (i) The agency makes 

substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental 

concerns; or (ii) There are significant new circumstances or information relevant 

to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts. 

The Forest Service reviewed comments and changes between the DEIS and FEIS 

in light of these regulations and determined that substantial changes to the 

proposed action have not occurred; and there are no significant new 

circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns. Therefore a 

supplemental EIS is not required. It is important to note that the Forest Service 

does not have authority under federal law or regulation to require off-site land 

mitigation. While the Army Corps of Engineers has regulatory authority to 

require off-site land mitigation to compensate for impacts to waters of the United 

States, no regulatory authority exists for the Forest Service to require similar 

mitigation.

The Coronado National Forest should 

allow the Rosemont Copper Company 

project to move forward, because it is 

in a federal mining district and there is 

historic precedent for using public land 

for mining

Whether or not the area was historically designated as a federal mining district, 

federal law regulation require an environmental analysis and permitting process 

that complies with the National Environmental Policy Act, and a number of 

federal laws enacted to protect the environment.

The Coronado National Forest should 

address faulty or incomplete 

irretrievable and irreversible resource 

analyses in the EIS.

The irreversible and irretrievable resource analysis for all resources have been 

reviewed and updated as determined appropriate for the FEIS. Refer to the 

Required Disclosures section in Chapter 3 of the FEIS for further detail.

The Coronado National Forest should 

revise the EIS to clarify that no land 

exchange will occur between 

Rosemont Copper Company and 

federal agencies.

The only actions associated to the Rosemont Copper Project that can be legally 

carried out are those that are authorized by the Record of Decision, which is 

based on the analysis described in the FEIS. Both the DEIS and FEIS clearly state 

that a land exchange of National Forest System lands is beyond the scope of this 

decision.

G-16 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

address concerns that mitigation 

measures won't minimize project 

impacts and provide additional 

mitigation information to ensure 

compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, allow 

public comment, and address missing 

information such as the water source 

enhancement and mitigation plan.

Since the publication of the DEIS, more detailed information regarding 

mitigation measures and monitoring activities has been identified as a result of 

agency coordination, consultation, updated resource plans, and updated technical 

reports. Each resource section of the FEIS has been updated to reflect this 

information, as appropriate. It is important to note that the role of mitigation is to 

avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce or compensate the adverse environmental 

impacts that the mine would have. Not all adverse environmental impacts would 

be avoided or reduced to insignificant levels. Mitigation measures identified in 

the Record of Decision would be required for implementation. Should Rosemont 

Copper fail to implement a required mitigation measure or achieve a measure's 

success criteria, the Forest Service would assess whether the project has met the 

terms of the Record of Decision and take actions to bring the project into 

compliance, as allowed by federal law and regulation. The updated mitigation 

and monitoring information of note includes the Water Source Enhancement and 

Mitigation Plan, compensatory land mitigation details, measures identified during 

Section 106 of the NHPA consultation, measures identified during Section 7 of 

the ESA consultation, measures identified in the 404 (b)1 document, as well as 

many other updated measures from permits that have since been acquired. Please 

refer to the appendix of the FEIS and the resource sections in Chapter 3 for 

updated description of mitigation and monitoring and analysis of mitigation 

effectiveness.

The Coronado National Forest should 

review technical reports for 

inconsistencies between the reports and 

between the EIS and design reports 

prepared for various permit 

applications, including the 404 permit.

The 404 permit that was submitted to the public for comment is a separate 

process meant to fulfill specific regulations managed by the Army Corps of 

Engineers. Updates that are needed to that permit application and other permit 

applications are the responsibility of the appropriate permitting authority. 

The Coronado, however, and their consultants have reviewed and noticed 

inconsistencies in the technical reports that support the NEPA analysis. 

The inconsistencies that were found to be important in affecting the analysis are 

explained in various sections of the FEIS. Other overarching inconsistencies, 

such as mine life, have documentation in the Project Record that supports what 

decisions were made that affected the analysis.

Consistency with Laws, Plans, Regulations, and Policy

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

reconsider the accuracy of the statutory 

right to mine conferred by the General 

Mining Law of 1872, based on mining 

claim validity.

The Forest Service has reviewed the comments and references provided in light 

of the information available, and has determined that statements about the 

statutory right of the proponent to access and recover their mineral resources are 

correct as stated in the DEIS and FEIS. It is not common practice, nor is it Forest 

Service policy, to challenge mining claim validity, except when (a) proposed 

operations are within an area withdrawn from mineral entry; (b) when a patent 

application is filed; and (c) when the agency deems that the proposed uses are not 

incidental to prospecting, mining, or processing operations. This last category 

includes such management concerns as illegal occupancy or use of mining claims 

for non-mining or non-mineral processing purposes. For operations proposed in 

accordance with Forest Service regulations, and where the above situations do 

not exist, conducting a validity exam is not in line with Forest Service policy. 

The placement of waste rock and mill tailings on the Forest are considered to be 

activities connected to mining and mineral processing as per 36CFR228 subpart 

A, and as such they are authorized activities regardless of whether they are on or 

off mining claims. This reasoning also follows direction and policy per section 

2800 of the Forest Service Manual concerning administration of locatable 

minerals on National Forest System lands.

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project G-17
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

address compliance with local planning 

efforts (including the Sonoran Desert 

Conservation Plan, the Multi-Species 

Habitat Conservation Plan, and the 

Comprehensive Land Use Plan, as well 

as their lighting ordinances).

While local plans do not necessarily apply to federal lands, federal regulations 

require that possible conflicts with local plans be discussed in environmental 

statements (40 CFR 1502.16(c); 40 CFR 15-6.2(d)). The DEIS disclosed 

instances where the proposed project would be inconsistent with local plans such 

as the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. The discussion has been updated in the 

FEIS in the Required Disclosure section of Chapter 3 to better describe whether 

inconsistencies would be reconciled.

The USFS should ensure that the DEIS 

analysis supports the regulations that 

the MPO will minimize adverse 

environmental impacts.

36 CFR 228 regulations establish guidelines intended to assure compliance with 

the Forest Service regulatory requirement to "minimize adverse environmental 

impacts on national forest surface resources," based on the Organic Act. 36 CFR 

228.8 establishes requirements to meet this standard, many of which are 

compliance with federal laws and regulations for environmental protection or 

taking practicable measures to reduce impacts to national forest system lands. 

The analysis in the FEIS has determined that the preferred alternative would 

comply with 36 CFR 228.8, and specified numerous requirements and mitigation 

measures intended to reduce environmental impacts. 

The Coronado National Forest should 

ensure that the revised EIS includes 

and complies with all relevant laws 

and regulations that influence the 

analysis.

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to move forward 

because it will not comply with, or be 

enforced by, existing laws, regulations, 

and policies.

In response to public and agency comments on the DEIS, a number of 

adjustments have been made to alternatives, and additional mitigation measures 

have been identified. The analysis that is disclosed in the FEIS takes these 

adjustments and mitigation measures into consideration. Federal, state and local 

laws and regulations that are applicable to the proposed project are discussed in 

the resource sections in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to move forward, 

because it is inconsistent with the Las 

Cienegas National Conservation Area 

goals.

The Forest Service acknowledges the importance of water resources within the 

Las Cienegas National Conservation Area and has analyzed impacts to those 

resources in the FEIS (Chapter 3, Seeps, Springs, and Riparian), including 

impacts to streams, wetlands, and springs associated with the Las Cienegas 

National Conservation Area resulting from groundwater drawdown as a result of 

the mine pit. In addition, the Required Disclosures section of Chapter 3 includes a 

discussion of how the Rosemont Copper Project may conflict with the Las 

Cienegas National Conservation Area Land and Resource Management Plan.

The Coronado National Forest should 

address potential impacts that could 

affect the ability of Wild and Scenic 

River study areas to be designated by 

Congress into the National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System.

In 1994, these segments were determined to be eligible for inclusion in the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers System by the Bureau of Land Management because the river 

is free- flowing and has outstandingly remarkable essential habitat for the Gila 

topminnow. While some impacts to the outstandingly remarkable essential 

habitat for the Gila topminnow could occur in Empire Gulch, these impacts 

would not occur in the foreseeable future. Groundwater drawdown could affect 

streamflow in Empire Gulch 150 year or more in the future. This would reduce 

the amount of water that Empire Gulch contributes to Cienega Creek. Indirect 

impacts on the Gila topminnow could occur in Empire Gulch where groundwater 

drawdown is modeled to occur. These impacts would not affect the free-flowing 

nature of the 10.5 miles of Cienega Creek deemed suitable for inclusion in the 

National Wild and Scenic River System; these impacts have the potential to 

affect the outstandingly remarkable essential habitat for the Gila topminnow. 

However, modeling indicates these impacts will not occur for 150 years 

following mine closure, have a high level of uncertainty, and it is likely that it 

will be many of hundreds of years before drawdown reaches levels in upper 

Empire Gulch that impact stream flow levels and thus impact Gila topminnow 

habitat. This is disclosed in the Required Disclosures section in Chapter 3 of the 

FEIS.

G-18 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest 

should address project conflicts with 

the Town of Sahuarita's objective of 

encouraging the use of alternative 

water sources and water conservation 

methods by water providers, and 

encourage strategies by all users 

requiring large quantities of water.

The Town of Sahuarita's general plan applies to the town's jurisdictional area. 

However, the FEIS has disclosed instances where aspects of the Rosemont 

Copper Project may conflict with the objectives described in the general plan in 

the Required Disclosures section in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. Groundwater pumping 

in the Santa Cruz Basin for the mine water supply is regulated by the Arizona 

Department of Water Resources. Under state regulations, Rosemont is required to 

obtain a permit for groundwater withdrawals, and is restricted to the water use 

allowed under that permit. The Forest Service has the responsibility to analyze 

the proposed project and reasonably foreseeable actions. The amount and 

duration of water supply pumping proposed by Rosemont and analyzed in the 

FEIS is consistent with the permit issued by the Arizona Department of Water 

Resources. The authority whether to renew or expand Rosemont's groundwater 

permit lies with the ADWR.

Agencies must require the company to 

submit right-of-way or other special 

use permit authorizations for roads and 

utility lines, and require that all 

mandates of FLPMA Title V and its 

implementing regulations are adhered 

to (e.g., no permit can be issued unless 

it can be shown that the issuance of the 

permits is in the best interests of the 

public, payment of fair market value, 

etc.).

Utility routes across BLM lands are no longer being considered, therefore the 

BLM has no decision to make regarding the Rosemont Copper Project. Forest 

Service Manual 2730 provides direction regarding road right of way. It states the 

following regarding FLMPA rights of way: "Grant all road rights-of-way under 

Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act with the exception of: 

5. Roads constructed on valid mining claims or mineral lease areas when the 

construction is authorized by an approved operating plan (36 CFR part 228 and 

FSM 2810)."

Financial Assurance / Reclamation Bonding

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

analyze Rosemont Copper 

Company’s ability to meet financial 

obligations and ensure the mine is 

financially viable.

Bonding is the mechanism used to assure that funds are available to reclaim the 

mine site should the proponent fail to carry out their obligations. The discussion on 

financial assurance and bonding has been revised for the FEIS. The Forest Service 

reclamation and closure bonding process is derived from 36 CFR Part 228 

regulations that set forth the rules and procedures through which use of the surface 

of National Forest System lands are governed in connection with operations 

authorized by the United States mining laws. Mine operators required to file a plan 

of operations shall, when required by the authorized officer, furnish a bond 

conditioned upon compliance with § 228.8(g), prior to approval of a plan of 

operations (emphasis added). For the Rosemont project, the plan of operation will 

not be approved until after the Record of Decision is signed to ensure that the plan 

of operation contains all requirements from the FEIS and ROD. Therefore final 

bond calculations will not be made until after the FEIS is published. 36 CFR Part 

228 states: “In determining the amount of the bond, consideration will be given to 

the estimated cost of stabilizing, rehabilitating, and reclaiming the area of 

operations.” The Forest Service Training Guide for Reclamation Bond Estimation 

and Administration (USDA Forest Service, April 2004) states, “Bonds should 

address all FS costs that would be incurred in taking over operations because of 

Operator default. Bonds should be estimated based on contracting the required 

reclamation work according to the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR).” It is 

important to note that adequate bonding will be required before ground disturbing 

activity can occur on National Forest System lands.

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project G-19
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

address bonding and owner 

responsibility in case reclamation is 

not completed or fails.

The discussion on financial assurance and bonding has been updated for the FEIS. 

The Forest Service reclamation and closure bonding process is derived from 36 

CFR Part 228 regulations that set forth the rules and procedures through which use 

of the surface of National Forest System lands are governed in connection with 

operations authorized by the United States mining laws. Mine operators required 

to file a plan of operations shall, when required by the authorized officer, furnish a 

bond conditioned upon compliance with § 228.8(g), prior to approval of a plan of 

operations (emphasis added). For the Rosemont project, the plan of operation will 

not be approved until after the Record of Decision is signed to ensure that the plan 

of operation contains all requirements from the FEIS and ROD. Therefore final 

bond calculations will not be made until after the FEIS is published. 36 CFR Part 

228 states: “In determining the amount of the bond, consideration will be given to 

the estimated cost of stabilizing, rehabilitating, and reclaiming the area of 

operations.” The Forest Service Training Guide for Reclamation Bond Estimation 

and Administration (USDA Forest Service, April 2004) states, “Bonds should 

address all FS costs that would be incurred in taking over operations because of 

Operator default. Bonds should be estimated based on contracting the required 

reclamation work according to the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR).”

Chapter 3

General Analysis

Public Concern Statement Response

Technical edits and comments. All comments regarding technical edits to the document have been reviewed for 

appropriateness and incorporated into the FEIS if applicable.

Geology, Minerals and Paleontology

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

analyze project impacts from a large 

natural or man-made seismic event.

Seismic stability of the tailings and waste rock facilities was analyzed and the 

results are presented in the FEIS (Chapter 3, Geology, Minerals, and 

Paleontology). The Forest Service has reviewed the analysis in light of the 

comments received and considers the level of analysis conducted to be adequate 

to assess the potential impacts from the proposed project. In addition, the seismic 

analysis was conducted to the level required by the State of Arizona. Seismic 

stability analysis was conducted for both the tailings and waste rock facilities to 

ensure that they would not incur failure or damage during earthquakes of any 

sort. In both cases, modeling indicated that the designed waste rock storage and 

tailings facilities are more stable than what is required by regulations, based on 

the planned crest height, bench widths, and slopes. The minimum factor-ofstability values required under regulations as best available control technology 

are 1.0 for seismic failure and 1.3 for static failure. As modeled, the factor-ofstability values for the tailings and waste rock facilities range from 1.0 to 1.2 for 

seismic failure and from 1.9 to 2.3 for static failure. The stability of these 

structures if fully described in Chapter 3, Soils and Revegetation.

G-20 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

further analyze the quantity of proven 

and likely copper reserves for the 

project.

The Forest has relied on publicly available information as well as Rosemont's 

MPO to affirm that ore reserves are present. Among these sources of information 

are Canadian regulation NI 43-101, which contains Standards of Disclosure for 

Mineral Projects for reporting and displaying information related to mineral 

properties owned by, or explored by, companies which report these results on 

stock exchanges within Canada. These requirements are rigorous and widely 

recognized as standards by which ore reserves can be systematically described. 

The Rosemont Copper Project meets the standards set forth for NI 43-101. 

Should the economics of the operation change so that it is no longer viable, the 

company would be required to close and reclaim the operation, or the Forest 

Service would use the reclamation bond monies to contract out the closure and 

reclamation.

The Coronado National Forest should 

provide additional information and 

analysis on impacts to regional karst or 

cavern systems from proposed project 

activities, and discuss mitigation 

measures to reduce those impacts.

In response to public comments, the Forest undertook a further review of cave 

resources. This included the potential for undiscovered cave resources to occur 

on the site, for cave or karst features to affect hydrologic conditions, and for 

existing caves to be impacted by the project, including Kartchner Caverns, 

Colossal Cave, Onyx Cave, and Cave of the Bells. This additional analysis is 

summarized in Chapter 3, Geology, Minerals, and Paleontology. Mitigation 

activities associated with cave resources are also described in this section.

The Coronado National Forest should 

revise the geology analysis to include 

better data regarding the geologic 

mapping of rocks exposed at the 

surface, and better characterization of 

subsurface stratigraphy, as well as 

better geologic mapping of structural 

features (including faults, folds, 

fracture patterns, and rock jointing) and 

describe how these structures affect 

groundwater.

The Forest Service utilized the best available information on the geologic 

mapping and subsurface stratigraphy within the project area, as described in 

Chapter 3, Geology section. To address the concerns of the hydraulic 

conductivity of various geologic formations and structures, peer review by 

independent experts in the field of geochemistry and groundwater modeling was 

performed to ensure that adequate methodologies and assumptions were utilized 

in the groundwater modeling. The Forest Service determined that the analysis 

conducted is reasonable and appropriate. The Forest Service recognizes that 

modeling represents a prediction of impacts, and cannot be taken as proof that 

impacts won't occur. Therefore, in part based on concerns raised during public 

comments, the discussion of surface and groundwater quality also explicitly 

identifies the monitoring that will be in place in order to ascertain into the future 

that modeled predictions were correct. The FEIS contains a detailed monitoring 

plan that describes the process that will be followed in assuring that the 

Rosemont project is implemented according the FEIS and ROD. If future 

conditions and operations reveal model inadequacies, the models will be 

reevaluated and updated to accommodate the newer and more accurate data.

The Coronado National Forest should 

provide monitoring for paleontological 

resources during construction.

Upon discovery of a significant paleontological resource, Rosemont Copper 

would suspend work at that site and the site would be investigated before work 

resumes. This would occur primarily during the premining and active mining 

phases. Refer to the Geology, Minerals and Paleontology section of Chapter 3 

and the mitigation and monitoring appendix in the FEIS for further information

The Coronado National Forest should 

clarify Rosemont Copper Company's 

holdings and discuss adjacent mine 

claims in the EIS.

Augusta Resources owns mineral resources adjacent to the area proposed for 

mining in the Rosemont Copper Project. Development of these resources is not 

ripe for inclusion as a reasonably foreseeable action in the Rosemont EIS because 

these mineral resources have not been adequately explored to determine 

economic feasibility and basic information such as type of mining, estimates of 

tailings and waste rock, etc. is not available and cannot be determined given 

current information. While further exploration and eventual mining could occur 

at some unknown time in the future, it would require further permitting and 

NEPA analysis should it involve federal lands or resources, including public 

notice and involvement.

The Coronado National Forest should 

include in the EIS a quantitative 

analysis of the design, compaction, 

dewatering, and long-term stability of 

the tailings.

The EIS is meant to be a summary document of environmental impacts. There are 

numerous reports that support the analysis as well as the project design that are 

incorporated by reference. Details related to the tailings storage design can be 

found in the design report by AMEC. The Forest Service has reviewed design 

documents and decided there is adequate detail from which to base a decision.

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project G-21
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Soils and Revegetation

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

consult the Watershed Condition 

Classification Assessment (WCA) 

completed in May 2011 to determine 

whether the watersheds in the area of 

the Rosemont project are functioning 

properly or are in poor condition and 

whether the watersheds in the area 

have been identified for priority 

Watershed Restoration Action Plans.

Analysis of watershed condition is primarily discussed in the Chapter 3, Soils 

section of the FEIS. The Watershed Condition Classification Assessment has 

been incorporated into this discussion as one of several sources of information.

The Coronado National Forest should 

provide further analysis of soil 

productivity, erosion, contamination, 

and sediment delivery in the EIS.

Impacts to surface water quality are fully analyzed in Chapter 3, Surface Water 

Quality. This analysis includes assessments of runoff water quality, sediment 

loads, geomorphology, and the expected success of any mitigation measures like 

Best Management Practices. Geomorphology has been assessed more fully since 

the DEIS, including the results of two professional studies, one by Rosemont and 

one by an independent contractor on behalf of the Forest. Numerical modeling 

studies were not considered necessary for the geomorphological analysis. 

Additional baseline surface and groundwater quality has also been considered 

and incorporated in the DEIS. An independent review of surface water and 

sediment modeling methods was also conducted and the results have been 

included in the FEIS. In addition to sedimentation and erosion, other impacts to 

soils including soil contamination, soil productivity, and revegetation success are 

also analyzed in Chapter 3, Soils and Revegetation, and Chapter 3, Hazardous 

Materials. Predictions of revegetation success have been revised by the Forest 

based on all available evidence, including results of on-site reclamation plots, and 

a description of desired vegetation conditions has been developed and is included 

in Chapter 3, Soils and Revegetation.

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to move forward, 

because of soil pollution and erosion 

impacts

The Forest Service has fully analyzed the effects of soil erosion and loss (Chapter 

3, Soils and Revegetation; and Surface Water), potential releases of hazardous 

materials to soil (Chapter 3, Hazardous Materials; and Air Quality), and expected 

reclamation success (Chapter 3, Soils and Revegetation). The analysis of soil 

erosion and loss and reclamation success was refined for the FEIS due to changes 

in both stormwater management design and revised reclamation techniques and 

plans, as described in Chapter 3, Soils and Revegetation.

The Coronado National Forest should 

provide for review and comment of a 

revegetation plan that reevaluates the 

efficacy of revegetation measures to 

ensure that they work, achieves native 

vegetation composition, and meets use 

needs (forage, wildfire prevention).

The Forest Service has reviewed and updated the information on revegetation 

presented in the DEIS. Updates include Forest Service review of revegetation 

success expectations, the Preliminary Reclamation and Closure Plan for the 

Barrel Alternative provided by Rosemont Copper, and the University of Arizona 

report based on the test plot findings. Information on revegetation, including 

success expectations, is presented in the Soils and Revegetation section in 

Chapter 3. Analysis of impacts to special status plant species is presented in the 

Biological Resources section in Chapter 3. The extent of impacts to water 

quantity is presented in the Groundwater Quantity, Surface Water Quantity and 

Seeps, Springs and Riparian sections in Chapter 3.

G-22 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

provide soil management plans, 

soil salvage stockpile locations and 

cost, and analyze soil quality and 

condition as a growth medium for 

reclamation, including addressing the 

need for re-naturalization.

The specific reclamation techniques are now available and have been described in 

the FEIS, in Chapter 3, Soils and Revegetation. This includes site preparation 

techniques and planting techniques. Areas of soil stockpile and placement of soil 

cover on reclaimed surfaces are also identified. Not all soil areas on the site are 

considered applicable for later reclamation use due to rock fragments or depth. 

The predicted reclamation success is based on multiple sources including the 

University of Arizona greenhouse studies, on-site reclamation test plots that have 

been in place for several years, and the professional experience and expertise of 

Forest specialists. The Forest recognizes that predictions of success may or may 

not be borne out by actual results; therefore the FEIS identifies reclamation 

success criteria and indicates that these criteria will need to be met, whether the 

expected reclamation techniques prove effective or not, as described in Chapter 3, 

Soils and Revegetation. Reclamation bonding takes into account costs for 

conducting these activities.

The Coronado National Forest should 

analyze tree health, impacts to rare 

woodland species and the potential to 

restore important tree species to the 

area during reclamation.

Impacts to plants are disclosed in a number of sections in of Chapter 3 in the 

FEIS. The revegetation strategy has been reviewed by the Forest Service and 

updated for the FEIS. It is important to understand that final details of 

revegetation plans will not be known until the final reclamation plan is prepared 

and accepted, which will follow the Record of Decision. This information will be 

incorporated into the final MPO, which must be completed and approved by the 

Forest Service before mine construction activities on National Forest System 

lands can commence.

The Coronado National Forest 

should work with the interagency task 

force to develop complete reclamation 

plans for review in the EIS that include 

concurrent reclamation and provide 

specific information on monitoring and 

oversight.

Reclamation and closure information presented in the FEIS is based on the latest 

and best information available. Monitoring and oversight have also been updated 

for the FEIS. Note that refinements to the reclamation and closure plan, and 

monitoring plan are expected to continue after the ROD is approved, as final 

permits are received and final details are designed for the selected alternative. 

These updated plans would be incorporated into the final MPO before any 

implementation could occur.

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to move forward, 

because Rosemont Copper Company 

cannot or is unwilling to restore and 

reclaim the landscape. 

The Coronado National Forest should 

reclaim land to support existing and 

desired post-mine land uses.

It is the policy of the US Forest Service that all lands disturbed by mineral 

activities shall be reclaimed to a condition that is consistent with forest land and 

resource management plans, including applicable State air and water quality 

requirements. The Coronado has also decided the desired condition that will be 

used to gauge reclamation success, as described in the FEIS. The Final 

Reclamation and Closure plan for the Rosemont Copper Project, is designed to 

achieve these goals. That plan will be subject to final approval as part of the Final 

MPO submitted to the Coronado after the Record of Decision. It is important to 

understand that reclamation does not necessarily indicate an ability to restore 

lands to their pre-mining condition. In the case of the Rosemont Copper Project 

and other open pit hard-rock mines, restoring pre-mining conditions is not 

feasible for technical, economic, and environmental reasons.

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project G-23
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Air Quality and Climate Change

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to move forward, 

because of human health impacts.

The EPA defines particulate matter (PM) as a complex mixture of extremely 

small particles and liquid droplets. Particle matter is made up of a number of 

components, including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, 

metals, and soil or dust particles. The size of particles is directly linked to their 

potential for causing health problems. EPA is concerned about particles that are 

10 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter or smaller because those particles 

generally pass through the throat and nose and enter the lungs. Once inhaled, 

these particles can affect the heart and lungs and cause serious health effects. 

EPA groups particle pollution into two categories: • PM10 -"Inhalable coarse 

particles," such as those found near roadways and dusty industries, are larger than 

2.5 micrometers and smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter. • PM2.5 - "Fine 

particles," such as those found in smoke and haze, are 2.5 micrometers in 

diameter and smaller. These particles can be directly emitted from sources such 

as forest fires, or they can form when gases emitted from power plants, industries 

and automobiles react in the air. The federal air quality standards (i.e., NAAQS) 

established maximum concentrations in ambient air for suspended PM10 and 

PM2.5. These standards were adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency to protect public health (primary standards) and public welfare against 

decreased visibility as well as damage to animals, crops, vegetation and buildings 

(secondary standards). These primary standards provide public health protection, 

including protecting the health of "sensitive" populations such as asthmatics, 

children, and the elderly. The Forest Service has reviewed the updated modeling 

analysis, which included a number of additional mitigation measures. These 

additional mitigation measures would further control fugitive PM10 emissions 

(which may contain lead, arsenic, chromium, cadmium, nickel and other 

elements). The updated analysis indicates that the preferred alternative would 

meet all federal air quality standards. Determination of the constituents of 

particulates is not a standard analysis conducted when evaluating particulate 

emissions. For the purposes of this analysis, it is presumed that if compliance 

with the PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS is achieved, public health would be protected 

from the toxic components within the particulate emissions as well. Please refer 

to the Air Quality and Climate Change section in Chapter 3 of the FEIS for 

further detail.

G-24 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

redo air quality modeling studies to 

present accurate, comprehensive 

information on the direct and 

cumulative effects of emissions of 

various pollutants and greenhouse 

gases throughout the entire affected 

geographic area (including the nearby 

communities of Vail, Patagonia, Elgin, 

etc.).

The Coronado National Forest should 

redo both the CALPUFF and 

AERMOD air quality modeling 

studies.

The Coronado National Forest should 

revise the air quality nitrogen dioxide 

analysis to incorporate the most recent 

Environmental Protection Agency 

guidance for modeling for the 1-hour 

nitrogen dioxide national ambient air 

quality standards; discuss the impacts 

of ozone; and provide a monitoring 

plan to monitor nitrogen oxides and 

ozone formation for its effects on 

aerosols and fine particulate standards, 

on opacity and visibility, and on public 

health.

The air quality analysis has been revised for the FEIS. In response to public 

comments on the DEIS regarding the specific modeling protocols and analysis 

used, the Forest in conjunction with other cooperating agencies (including the 

National Park Service, Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, and 

Smithsonian Institute), reviewed the modeling protocol used by Rosemont, 

revised the modeling protocol, and requested that this revised protocol be used to 

assess modeled impacts. The modeling conducted and used for analysis in the 

FEIS uses this protocol, and the Forest has determined the techniques used 

represent the best available science, and are reasonable and acceptable for 

predicting impacts to air quality. Full details of the protocols used are included in 

the project record. The revised analysis indicates that the preferred alternative 

meets air quality standards (NAAQS) at the perimeter fenceline, and is therefore 

protective of public health outside of the mine site. Analysis thresholds for 

visibility and nitrogen deposition have been exceeded for several Class I areas. 

Please refer to the Air Quality section in Chapter 3 of the FEIS for further 

information on the results of this modeling.

The Coronado National Forest should 

include road emissions from vehicular 

and truck traffic and nonroad emissions 

from agriculture in the EIS.

Emissions from mine related vehicles, including trucks, is addressed in the Air 

Quality analysis. Impacts are disclosed in Chapter 3, Air Quality section in the 

FEIS.

The Coronado National Forest should 

analyze naturally occurring hazards 

associated with mined materials and 

groundwater, such as radioactivity and 

asbestos, and provide mitigation 

measures.

Potential impacts related to radioactivity and asbestos have been added to the 

FEIS. Potential impacts to air quality, soils, and ground and surface water from 

pollutants associated with the mine are disclosed in the in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 

Specifically, the potential for Technological Enhancement of Naturally Occurring 

Radioactive Materials (TENORM) is addressed in the Groundwater Quality 

section of Chapter 3, and asbestos is addressed in the Air Quality section of 

Chapter 3. The revised analysis indicates that air quality standards (NAAQS) are 

met at the perimeter fenceline and are therefore protective of public health 

outside of the mine site, and that all applicable water quality standards, and other 

laws, regulations, policies, and plans would be met by the preferred alternative.

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project G-25
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

revise the air quality analysis as well as 

other sections of the EIS to disclose 

impacts from fugitive dust or nitrogen 

deposition on vegetation and provide 

mitigation measures to monitor 

vegetation for the effects of toxic 

elements or nitrogen deposition during 

re-vegetation.

Since the DEIS was issued, a number of additional mitigation measures have 

been incorporated to reduce emissions, including more efficient engines, 

pollution control equipment and further particulate control. Furthermore, in 

consultation with various other agencies, including the Environmental Protection 

Agency Region 9, the Forest requested revisions to the air dispersion modeling 

protocols and the models were rerun. Based on the reductions resulting from the 

addition of these mitigation measures, and the revisions to the emission inventory 

and modeling protocols, the air dispersion modeling analysis was revised. 

The revised analysis indicates the preferred alternative would meet air quality 

standards (NAAQS) at the perimeter fenceline and is therefore protective of 

public health outside of the mine site. Please refer to the Air Quality section in 

Chapter 3 of the FEIS for further information on the results of this revised 

modeling. Impact from nitrogen deposition on Class I areas is also analyzed in 

the Air Quality section of Chapter 3; nitrogen deposition thresholds are exceeded 

for some Class I areas, as discussed in the Air Quality section. The reclamation 

plan for the Rosemont Project is designed to achieve a set of objectives that are 

designed for this specific location and climate. The EIS recognizes that premining conditions will not be restored, and many of the impacts from mining 

activities cannot be fully mitigated. As disclosed in the DEIS and FEIS, 

environmental impacts will remain after mine closure and reclamation.

The Coronado National Forest should 

revise the air quality analysis to discuss 

background data, potential sources, 

assumptions, and calculations for PM 

10 and PM 2.5.

The Coronado National Forest should 

revise its analysis of National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards criteria 

pollutants to disclose additional 

background data; provide support for 

pollutant calculations; better quantify 

cumulative impacts; and include 

monitoring requirements.

The air quality analysis has been updated for the FEIS. Since the DEIS was 

issued, a number of additional mitigation measures have been incorporated to 

reduce emissions, including more efficient engines, pollution control equipment 

and further particulate control. In response to public comments on the DEIS 

regarding the specific modeling protocols and analysis used, the Forest in 

conjunction with other cooperating agencies (including the National Park 

Service, Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, and Smithsonian Institute), 

reviewed the modeling protocol used by Rosemont, revised the modeling 

protocol, and requested that this revised protocol be used to assess modeled 

impacts. The modeling conducted and used for analysis in the FEIS uses this 

protocol, and the Forest has determined the techniques used represent the best 

available science, and are reasonable and acceptable for predicting impacts to air 

quality. Full details of the protocols used is included in the project record. Based 

on the reductions resulting from the addition of these mitigation measures, and 

the revisions to the emission inventory and modeling protocols, the air dispersion 

modeling analysis was revised. Please refer to the Air Quality section in Chapter 

3 of the FEIS for further information in regards to background data, potential 

sources, assumptions, and PM10 and PM2.5 emission estimation methodology.

The Coronado National Forest should 

revise the air quality analysis to 

identify what mitigation techniques 

would be used, what the impacts of 

those techniques would be on other 

resources, and how monitoring would 

occur to determine when techniques 

should be applied.

The revised air quality analysis that is described in the FEIS contains a discussion 

of mitigation and monitoring measures. Since the DEIS was issued, a number of 

additional mitigation measures, including more efficient engines, pollution 

control equipment and further particulate control. Furthermore, revisions were 

made to the air dispersion modeling protocols in consultation with the 

Environmental Protection Agency. Based on the reductions resulting from the 

addition of these mitigation measures, and the revisions to the emission inventory 

and modeling protocols, the air dispersion modeling analysis was revised. 

In addition, Rosemont has obtained an air quality permit from the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality, mandating use of these mitigation 

measures. Please refer to the Air Quality section in Chapter 3 of the FEIS for 

further information.

G-26 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

revise the air quality analysis to include 

project area–specific wind data that 

incorporates the impacts of the canyon 

topography as well as any prevailing 

winds, and should base its analysis of 

dust emissions on wind gust speeds (as 

opposed to 1-hour speeds) to provide a 

more realistic estimate of the amount 

of dust that would be produced as well 

as the direction and extent to which 

dust and other emissions would travel, 

and to better identify appropriate 

mitigation measures.

The air quality analysis has been revised for the FEIS. In response to public 

comments on the DEIS regarding the specific modeling protocols and analysis 

used, the Forest in conjunction with other cooperating agencies (including the 

National Park Service, Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, and 

Smithsonian Institute), reviewed the modeling protocol used by Rosemont, 

revised the modeling protocol, and requested that this revised protocol be used to 

assess modeled impacts. The modeling conducted and used for analysis in the 

FEIS uses this protocol, and the Forest has determined the techniques used 

represent the best available science, and are reasonable and acceptable for 

predicting impacts to air quality. Full details of the protocols used are included in 

the project record. In response to comments on the DEIS, a number of mitigation 

and monitoring measures were added, and several analyses updated. The analysis 

now indicates that air quality standards (NAAQS)would be met by the preferred 

alternative at the perimeter fenceline and is therefore protective of public health 

outside of the mine site.

The Coronado National Forest should 

revise the air quality analysis to include 

impacts from train transport of ore, offloading of ore, and smelting activities.

The air quality analysis addressed emissions from transportation of concentrate 

and/or cathodes to the extent practical. It is not known where or how this material 

will be transported, although analysis addresses transport by truck to several 

potential destinations. Likewise, the location of smelting is unknown other than 

the fact that Rosemont has indicated it will not be in the United States. Therefore 

it is not feasible to analyze the air quality impacts of smelting activities.

The Coronado National Forest should 

revise its air quality analysis to include 

impacts from severe weather events 

such as monsoons.

Rosemont has obtained an air quality permit from the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality. It is the responsibility of the mine owner/operator to 

maintain compliance with their air permit, which would have conditions to limit 

fugitive dust emissions, including operating conditions dealing with extreme 

weather events. Furthermore, the owner/operator of the mine would be required 

to conduct air monitoring and recordkeeping to document compliance with those 

requirements. However, severe weather events could be categorized as 

Exceptional Events. Exceptional Events are unusual or naturally occurring events 

that can affect air quality but are not reasonably controllable using techniques 

that tribal, state or local air agencies may implement in order to attain and 

maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. For particulate matter, 

these events can be the result of large fires, high winds, man-made events such as 

explosions, or natural events such as volcanic eruptions. In the southwest, high 

winds can accompany large storms (e.g., haboobs) that move across a regional or 

state-wide swath of land, or high winds can accompany “micro-bursts” with or 

without rain that descend upon a small, localized area. If the severe weather event 

is determined by the EPA Administrator to be an exceptional event the event 

would not be considered an exceedance of the NAAQS.

The Coronado National forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to move forward, 

because it cannot meet necessary air 

quality permit requirements.

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to move forward, 

because of direct, indirect, and 

cumulative impacts to air quality.

The air quality analysis has been revised for the FEIS. Modeling protocols were 

coordinated with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other 

cooperating agencies. In response to comments on the DEIS, a number of 

mitigation and monitoring measures were added, and several analyses revised. 

The revised analysis indicates that air quality standards (NAAQS)would be met 

by the preferred alternative. Please refer to the Air Quality section in Chapter 3 of 

the FEIS for further information on the results of this revised modeling. Augusta 

Resources owns the mineral rights to the ore body they are proposing to mine. 

Although the Forest Service may reasonably regulate mining activities to protect 

surface resources, there are statutory and constitutional limits to its discretion. 

The Forest Service may reject an unreasonable Mine Plan of Operation but 

cannot categorically prohibit mining or deny reasonable and legal mineral 

operations under the mining laws. The current available science does not allow 

for the calculation or prediction of changes in climates at a regional scale that 

might allow a statistical estimate of such events. NEPA requires analysis of 

impacts from or to events that are reasonably foreseeable. The Coronado has 

evaluated estimates on the mass emissions of GHG resulting from construction, 

worker commuting, and project operations for comparison to that of the Pima 

County emission inventory total.

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project G-27
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

revise the analysis of Class I and Class

II Airsheds and should identify suitable 

mitigation to reduce impacts.

In response to comments on the DEIS, a number of mitigation and monitoring 

measures were added, and several analyses updated. Thus, the air quality analysis 

has been updated for the FEIS. Modeling protocols were coordinated with the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies. The updated analysis 

indicates that NAAQS would be met at all Class I areas, such as Saguaro 

National Park East. There are concerns with visibility and deposition at Class I 

areas. Applicable thresholds that determine whether modeled impacts are 

significant were exceeded for Saguaro National Park East, Saguaro National Park 

West, and the Galiuro Wilderness. Unlike NAAQS, modeled exceedance of these 

thresholds does not indicate a violation of federal law or regulation. Rather, 

modeled exceedance of visibility and deposition thresholds at Class I areas 

triggers the federal land manager to coordinate with those Class I areas and 

ensure that all appropriate mitigation has been implemented. This process has 

been undertaken by the Coronado National Forest. Please refer to the Air Quality 

section in Chapter 3 of the FEIS for further information on the results of this 

revised modeling. 40 CFR § 81.403 lists the Federal Class I areas within Arizona. 

The Mt. Wrightson Wilderness is not listed as a Class I and is considered to be a 

Class II area. The Forest Service does not have the authority to change Class II 

areas to Class I. For the Rosemont project, Mt. Wrightson was not specifically 

included in the air quality modeling as it is not a federally listed Class I area. 

Class I areas receive the highest degree of protection, with only a small amount 

of certain kinds of additional air pollution allowed. The air quality model used 

estimates the maximum ambient air concentrations from the project. These 

maximum ambient air concentrations are generally inside the perimeter fence. 

Thus, all other Class II areas, including Mt. Wrightson, would have ambient air 

concentrations less than this modeled maximum.

G-28 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

revise the EIS to more fully disclose 

the amounts and constituents of dust 

(including such compounds as lead, 

arsenic, chromium, cadmium, and 

nickel) that would be generated from 

traffic; the transportation of materials 

such as ore; blasting; tailings piles, 

stockpiled soil, and other surface 

disturbances; and appropriate 

mitigation measures to reduce impacts 

to acceptable levels.

The EPA defines particulate matter (PM) as a complex mixture of extremely 

small particles and liquid droplets. Particle matter is made up of a number of 

components, including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, 

metals, and soil or dust particles. The size of particles is directly linked to their 

potential for causing health problems. EPA is concerned about particles that are 

10 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter or smaller because those particles 

generally pass through the throat and nose and enter the lungs. Once inhaled, 

these particles can affect the heart and lungs and cause serious health effects. 

EPA groups particle pollution into two categories: • PM10 -"Inhalable coarse 

particles," such as those found near roadways and dusty industries, are larger than 

2.5 micrometers and smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter. • PM2.5 - "Fine 

particles," such as those found in smoke and haze, are 2.5 micrometers in 

diameter and smaller. These particles can be directly emitted from sources such 

as forest fires, or they can form when gases emitted from power plants, industries 

and automobiles react in the air. The federal air quality standards (i.e., NAAQS) 

established maximum concentrations in ambient air for suspended PM10 and 

PM2.5. These standards were adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency to protect public health (primary standards) and public welfare against 

decreased visibility as well as damage to animals crops, vegetation and buildings 

(secondary standards). These primary standards provide public health protection, 

including protecting the health of "sensitive" populations such as asthmatics, 

children, and the elderly. The Forest Service has reviewed the revised modeling 

analysis, which included a number of additional mitigation measures. These 

additional mitigation measures would further control fugitive PM10 emissions 

(which could presumptively contain such compounds as lead, arsenic, chromium, 

cadmium, and nickel). The revised analysis indicates that the preferred alternative 

would meet all federal air quality standards. Determination of the constituents of 

particulates is not a standard analysis conducted when evaluating particulate 

emissions. For the purposes of this analysis, it is presumed that if compliance 

with the PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS is achieved, public health would be protected 

from the toxic metals compounds within the particulate emissions as well. Please 

refer to the Air Quality and Climate Change section in Chapter 3 of the FEIS for 

further detail.

The Coronado National Forest should 

revise the greenhouse gas analysis to 

include both the upstream activities 

needed for the project (such as power 

generation) and all downstream 

activities that would result from the 

project (such as all processing 

emissions, including methane); all 

mine-related vehicle use and transport 

emissions; and ore processing; as well 

as the loss of carbon sinks such as 

trees.

The current available science does not allow for the calculation or prediction of 

changes in climates at a regional scale that might allow a statistical estimate of 

such events. NEPA requires analysis of impacts from or to events that are 

reasonably foreseeable. The Coronado has evaluated estimates on the mass 

emissions of GHG resulting from construction, worker commuting, and project 

operations for comparison to that of the Pima County emission inventory total. It 

is not possible for the Forest Service to determine the source of electrical power 

that will power the Rosemont project. Tucson Electric Power Company will be 

the provider of electricity. Tucson Electric Power Company engages in the 

generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity in Arizona. The company 

generates electricity through coal, gas, oil, and solar facilities. It serves 403,000 

retail electric customers in a 1,155 square mile area in southeastern Arizona. In 

addition, the company sells electricity to other utilities and power marketing 

entities in the western United States. Where power comes from for a particular 

customer or use is dependent on multiple variables and changes depending on 

electricity available, demand, etc.

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project G-29
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

provide meaningful monitoring and 

surveillance with respect to air quality.

Authorization of a mine involves approval of a Mine Plan of Operation that 

includes features designed to minimize off-site impacts, including to air quality. 

Those designs account for reasonably foreseeable environmental conditions and 

mitigation measures to maintain compliance with all federal air quality standards. 

These design and mitigation measures are enforceable conditions under the air 

quality permit obtained by Rosemont from the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality. It is the responsibility of the mine owner/operator to 

maintain compliance with their air permit, which has conditions to limit fugitive 

dust emissions. Furthermore, the owner/operator of each mine is required to 

conduct air monitoring and recordkeeping to document compliance with those 

requirements. In addition, the responsible regulatory agency will ensure 

compliance with the air quality permit by conducting unannounced inspections of 

the mines.

Groundwater Quantity, Seeps, Springs, & Riparian Areas

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

develop and make available for public 

review a comprehensive water 

resources mitigation and monitoring 

program that is consistent with the 

regulations in the Arizona Revised 

Statute, and that identifies roles and 

responsibilities, specific long-term 

actions for treatment of contaminated 

waters, and mitigation of drawdowns

(including reporting requirements) as 

well as enforcement procedures and 

funding sources.

Mitigation, including that related to water resources, has been better organized 

and defined in the FEIS to more clearly identify mitigation related to design 

factors, permitting, other required measures, and measures committed to and not 

yet fully defined. This includes details required under the Aquifer Protection 

Permit, bonding procedures, and compensatory land mitigation offered by 

Rosemont. Monitoring requirements and procedures has been clearly spelled out 

in the FEIS. One purpose of monitoring is to identify at given intervals any 

exceptions from the assumptions used in the NEPA analysis; a process exists for 

considering these exceptions and revisiting the NEPA analysis if needed.

The Coronado National Forest should 

allow the Rosemont Copper Company 

project to move forward, because it 

will protect water resources, and their 

water use will be regulated

Full analysis of the water use of the proposed mine and the impact of the 

proposed mine on availability of water in both the Santa Cruz Basin and the 

Davidson Canyon/Cienega Basin is included in the FEIS (Chapter 3, 

Groundwater Quantity). This includes the current understanding of the aquifers in 

the area, water budgets for these aquifers, and existing and reasonably 

foreseeable uses of these aquifers. The FEIS also analyzes mitigation associated 

with water resources and the effectiveness of that mitigation. The Forest Service 

has undertaken extensive peer review by independent experts in the field of 

groundwater modeling to ensure that adequate methodologies and assumptions 

were utilized in the modeling. The full extent of this peer review is available in 

the administrative record. Furthermore, the Forest Service has relied on the 

results of multiple groundwater models, all with different assumptions and 

professional viewpoints, to provide a range of reasonable predicted impacts. 

Based on the body of work produced during this peer review process, the Forest 

Service is satisfied that the groundwater modeling analysis conducted is 

reasonable and appropriate. The Forest Service recognizes that modeling 

represents a prediction of impacts, and cannot be taken as proof that impacts 

won't occur. Therefore, in part based on concerns raised during public comments, 

monitoring will be in place in order to ascertain into the future that modeled 

predictions were correct. The FEIS contains a detailed monitoring plan that 

describes the process that will be followed in assuring that the Rosemont project 

is implemented according to the FEIS and ROD.

G-30 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to move forward, 

because of the high level and lack of 

limits of proposed water usage; the 

scarcity of water (both groundwater 

and Central Arizona Project water); 

and the impacts of water depletion on 

people as well as the natural 

environment (including impacts to 

water sources and wildlife, as well as 

subsidence resulting from the use of 

groundwater)

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to move forward, 

because of general impacts to the 

quality and quantity of surface water as 

well as the groundwater water table 

and aquifers

All noted aspects of potential impacts on water resources have been addressed in 

the FEIS. Potential impacts to groundwater availability, including water 

availability for homeowners, the regulatory mechanisms under which Rosemont 

is allowed to withdraw water, and the uncertainties associated with the 

groundwater modeling techniques, are analyzed in Chapter 3, Groundwater 

Quantity. Potential impacts to surface water and groundwater quality are 

analyzed in Chapter 3, Surface Water Quality and Chapter 3, Groundwater 

Quality and Geochemistry. Potential impacts to riparian habitat, including that in 

Davidson Canyon, Cienega Creek, Empire Gulch, Gardner Canyon, and Barrel 

Canyon, as well as perennial streams, Outstanding Arizona Waters, and springs 

and any associated riparian habitat, are addressed in Chapter 3, Seeps, Springs, 

and Riparian Areas. Potential impacts to biological resources due to impacts on 

riparian habitat or water sources are addressed in Chapter 3, Biological 

Resources. Potential impacts from subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal are 

addressed in Chapter 3, Geology, Minerals, and Paleontology. All mitigation 

measures associated with water resources are summarized in the mitigation and 

monitoring appendix of the FEIS and analyzed in the appropriate resource section 

in Chapter 3, including discussion of the limitations of those mitigation measures, 

specifically CAP recharge and the well owner protection agreements. Effects of 

climate change are analyzed as a cumulative effect in each of the resource 

sections in Chapter 3.

The Coronado National Forest should 

provide an analysis of project 

drawdown impacts on local watersheds 

and wells, as well as mitigation or 

compensation measures with regard to 

owners.

Potential impacts of the proposed mine on groundwater availability, both in the 

vicinity of the proposed pumping wells near Sahuarita and in the vicinity of the 

mine pit itself, are addressed in Chapter 3, Groundwater Quantity. The Forest has 

not analyzed impacts to individual domestic wells; the reasons for and limitations 

of this analysis are described in the FEIS. The potential mitigation measures 

applicable to domestic water supply and individual well owners are described in 

the mitigation and monitoring appendix of the FEIS, and their effectiveness is 

analyzed in Chapter 3, Groundwater Quantity. This includes well owner 

agreements on both the west and east sides, and CAP recharge. The limitations 

and applicability of these mitigation measures are clearly described in these 

sections. The legal framework under which Rosemont has obtained their water 

supply is also fully described in Chapter 3, Groundwater Quantity. Increased 

costs to individual well owners or rate payers due to increased pumping costs, 

due to drawdown from mine water supply, is identified as a potential impact in 

Chapter 3, Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice, as is the economic effect 

of the loss of water supply for real estate near the mine pit.

The Coronado National Forest should 

address issues related to groundwater 

modeling, including a re-analysis of 

underlying geologic conditions, and 

revise the EIS accordingly.

Numerous public and cooperator agency concerns have been raised, both during 

the DEIS public comment period and during internal review of the DEIS, about 

the groundwater and geochemical models, including the techniques and 

assumptions used. The Forest Service has reviewed all comments submitted and 

has undertaken an extensive review process , including review by independent 

experts in groundwater modeling and geochemistry, review by outside agencies, 

review by cooperating agencies, and review by Forest Service specialists. 

A range of sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate a possible range of 

impacts using different modeling assumptions. The ranges resulting from these 

sensitivity analyses are all disclosed in Chapter 3, Groundwater Quantity. 

The Forest Service has concluded that the models used are reasonable and 

acceptable for predicting impacts for the purposes of the FEIS. The uncertainties 

and limitations of the models, including areas of professional disagreement that 

were unable to be resolved, are described in Chapter 3, Groundwater Quantity 

and Chapter 3, Groundwater Quality and Geochemistry. If future conditions and 

operations reveal model inadequacies, the models will be reevaluated and 

updated to accommodate the newer and more accurate data

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project G-31
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

revise the EIS to include additional 

information on the potential for 

subsidence, expected extent of impacts, 

and ways to reduce risk.

Land subsidence caused by withdrawal of groundwater is analyzed in Chapter 3, 

Groundwater Quantity. The analysis acknowledges that land subsidence is 

occurring in the area, and that it is expected to continue in the area. However, the 

Forest Service believes it would be speculative to assign a specific amount of 

increased subsidence to the groundwater pumping for the mine water supply, 

which represents about an increase of 14 to 18% of the net groundwater pumping 

from the Green Valley area as reported for 2006.

The Coronado National Forest should 

revise the EIS to provide a complete 

and credible analysis of Rosemont 

Copper Company's proposed actions 

regarding the future use of Central 

Arizona Project water supply (or any 

other replacement water source), the 

availability and guarantee of that water 

source for use in recharge, and the 

proposed groundwater storage options.

All details of proposed mitigation related to water resources is included in the 

FEIS in Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Groundwater Quantity, and the Mitigation and 

Monitoring Plan appendix. This includes the proposed CAP recharge mitigation, 

which includes details on the mechanisms for obtaining CAP water under various 

contracting mechanisms other than declared excess CAP water, and delivering 

water to the Green Valley area. The effects of the pumping in the Sahuarita area 

and the effectiveness of the proposed recharge of CAP water for mitigation are 

described in Chapter 3, Groundwater Quantity. This includes full disclosure of 

the current and possible locations of that recharge; the uncertainty with respect to 

the location of recharge is one reason why such recharge was not included in the 

modeling of pumping impacts. Mitigation has been better organized and defined 

in the FEIS to more clearly identify mitigation that is committed to, versus 

mitigation that has not yet been fully detailed by Rosemont. Direct use of CAP 

water is analyzed in Chapter 2 – Alternatives Considered but Eliminated.

The Coronado National Forest should 

revise the analysis of aquifer 

drawdown and flow stream reductions 

to incorporate continuing drought 

conditions and effects of climate 

change.

Climate change, including potential impacts from drought in relation to aquifer 

drawdown and stream flow has been addressed in the FEIS. Please refer to the 

sections on Climate Change, Groundwater and Surface Water in Chapter 3 of the 

FEIS for further information.

The Coronado National Forest should 

expand the water quality and quantity 

study areas to include a more thorough 

analysis of impacts to the east side of 

the Santa Rita Mountains, the Las 

Cienegas National Conservation Area, 

the Sonoita Plain, and developments 

along Sonoita Creek and other 

communities.

The Forest has reviewed all comments submitted regarding the analysis area for 

water resources. The Forest believes that the analysis area portrayed in the FEIS 

is appropriate, scientifically sound, and reasonable for predicting impacts to 

groundwater and surface water resources. 

The Coronado National Forest should 

revise the water resources analysis of 

the No Action Alternative to 

acknowledge potential for changing 

groundwater changes even without the 

project. 

The Coronado National Forest should 

revise the water resources cumulative 

analysis to acknowledge chronic 

unhealthy aquatic ecosystem quality 

trends as well as water quantity issues 

such as population growth, electricity 

generation needs, and Native American 

water rights.

The technical edits with respect to the No Action alternative and water resources 

have been addressed in the FEIS. Future impacts are analyzed in different ways 

in the FEIS. Analysis of the No Action Alternative has been refined in the FEIS 

to incorporate current and existing trends, including population growth and 

increased use of groundwater in both the Cienega Creek and Upper Santa Cruz 

basins. With respect to cumulative effects, only those future actions considered 

reasonably foreseeable and have overlap in time and space with the project 

effects are analyzed. The list of activities determined by the Forest to be 

reasonably foreseeable are identified in the FEIS. Potential use of CAP water in 

the Green Valley area is considered reasonably foreseeable and the impacts of 

these possible activities on water resources are analyzed in the Cumulative 

Effects section of Chapter 3, Groundwater Quantity. Development of additional 

ore bodies in the vicinity of Rosemont is not considered by the Forest to be 

reasonably foreseeable for purposes of the analysis. Climate change has been 

considered a reasonably foreseeable action and analysis of climate change is 

included in the Cumulative Effects section. Native American water rights 

associated with the Southern Arizona Water Rights Settlement Act and associated 

legislation are addressed in the Groundwater Quantity section in Chapter 3 of the 

FEIS. Other surface water rights in the Davidson Canyon/Cienega Creek 

watershed have been addressed qualitatively in the Surface Water Quantity 

section, as the priority and validity of these surface water rights have not yet been 

determined through the General Stream Adjudication.”

G-32 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

revise the EIS to clarify that Rosemont 

Copper Company has no legal 

restrictions on the amount of water 

they can extract from the aquifer, and 

analyze the impacts of this water use 

on water quality and quantity.

Groundwater pumping in the Santa Cruz Basin for the mine water supply is 

regulated by the Arizona Department of Water Resources. Under state 

regulations, Rosemont is required to obtain a permit for groundwater 

withdrawals, and is restricted to the water use allowed under that permit. 

The Forest Service has the duty to analyze the proposed project and reasonably 

foreseeable actions. The amount and duration of water supply pumping proposed 

by Rosemont and analyzed in the FEIS is consistent with the permit issued by the 

Arizona Department of Water Resources. Regardless of the ability of Rosemont 

to apply for and receive rights from the Arizona Department of Water Resources 

to pump water above and beyond what their permit currently allows, any 

substantial change in water use could trigger a review of the applicability of the 

current NEPA analysis by the Forest Service.

The Coronado National Forest should 

revise the EIS analysis area spatially 

and temporally to address the direct 

and indirect impacts to tribal water 

resources.

Discussion of the effects of the proposed mine water supply pumping on any 

nearby groundwater users, including the Tohono O'odham Nation, has been 

included in the FEIS (Chapter 3, Groundwater Quantity).

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to move forward, 

because of the potential loss of seeps 

and springs

Impacts to springs from direct disturbance as well as impacts to groundwater 

from dewatering of the mine pit have been fully analyzed in Chapter 3, Seeps, 

Springs, and Riparian Areas, and the impacts of the loss of these water sources on 

wildlife is analyzed in Chapter 3, Biological Resources. The cultural impacts of 

the loss of sacred springs is analyzed in Chapter 3, Cultural Resources. Since 

publication of the DEIS, additional field surveys have been conducted to further 

refine the springs and seeps inventory, the analysis area considered has been 

reviewed and found to be appropriate, and consideration was given to the 

threshold of groundwater drawdown considered in light of the accuracy of the 

groundwater models. Technical edits suggested to the seep and spring inventory 

were considered and incorporated if appropriate. All mitigation and monitoring 

measures associated with water resources are described in the FEIS; many 

mitigation measures suggested during public comment were analyzed by the 

Forest for appropriateness and incorporated if feasible. Impacts to other surface 

waters, including perennial streams, is also analyzed in Chapter 3, Seeps, 

Springs, and Riparian Areas. Impacts to wells are analyzed in Chapter 3, 

Groundwater Quantity. Impacts to surface water quality including sedimentation 

impacts and geomorphological changes is analyzed in Chapter 3, Surface Water 

Quality. Impacts from climate change and current trends such as the ongoing 

drought are also appropriately analyzed in these sections.

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to move forward, 

because of impacts to riparian and 

wetlands areas within the Santa Ritas 

Mountains, specifically the areas 

around Davidson Canyon, Cienega 

Creek, and Patagonia Sonoita Creek

The FEIS addresses potential impacts to riparian habitat due to changes in surface 

water or groundwater resources in Chapter 3, Seeps, Springs, and Riparian Areas, 

including an expanded analysis of any potential impacts to Outstanding Arizona 

Waters and specific assessment of areas along Empire Gulch, Gardner Canyon, 

Cienega Creek, Davidson Canyon, and Barrel Canyon. Potential impacts to 

biological resources, including threatened or endangered species, due to impacts 

on riparian habitat or springs is addressed in Chapter 3, Biological Resources. 

Potential impact from accidental release of hazardous materials is addressed in 

Chapter 3, Hazardous Materials. Potential impacts to the quality of surface water 

runoff is addressed in Chapter 3, Surface Water Quality. All mitigation applicable 

to water resources is discussed in Chapter 2 and the Mitigation and Monitoring 

appendix and the effectiveness is evaluated in the appropriate resource section. 

The cumulative effects of climate change are addressed in each of these resource 

sections.

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project G-33
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

revise the EIS to quantify long-term 

risks to water quality and quantity.

Analysis of water use of the proposed mine and the impact of the proposed mine 

on availability of water in both the Santa Cruz Basin and the Davidson 

Canyon/Cienega Basin is included in the FEIS (Chapter 3, Groundwater 

Quantity). This includes aquifer descriptions, water budgets, and existing and 

reasonably foreseeable uses of these two distinct aquifers. The FEIS also 

analyzes mitigation associated with water resources and the effectiveness of that 

mitigation. The Forest Service performed peer review by independent experts in 

the field of groundwater modeling to ensure that adequate methodologies and 

assumptions were utilized in the modeling. The Forest Service has relied on the 

results of multiple groundwater models, with some different assumptions, to 

provide a range of reasonable predicted impacts. The Forest Service determined 

that the groundwater modeling analysis conducted is reasonable and appropriate. 

The Forest Service recognizes that modeling represents a prediction of impacts, 

and cannot be taken as proof that impacts won't occur. Therefore, in part based on 

concerns raised during public comments, monitoring will be in place in order to 

ascertain into the future that modeled predictions were correct. The FEIS contains 

a detailed monitoring plan that describes the process that will be followed in 

assuring that the Rosemont project is implemented according to the FEIS and 

ROD. If future conditions and operations reveal model inadequacies, the models 

will be reevaluated and updated to accommodate the newer and more accurate 

data.

The Coronado National Forest should 

revise the analysis for seeps and 

springs to disclose their current 

conditions (including locations, current 

flow, and chemistry), as well as the 

projected impact to quality and 

quantity for each resource (including 

indirect biological, economic, or 

cultural impacts from any losses of 

these resources), and appropriate inkind mitigation to reduce impacts.

Impacts to springs from direct disturbance as well as impacts to groundwater 

from dewatering of the mine pit have been fully analyzed in Chapter 3, Seeps, 

Springs, and Riparian Areas, and the impacts of the loss of these water sources on 

wildlife is analyzed in Chapter 3, Biological Resources. The cultural impacts of 

the loss of sacred springs is analyzed in Chapter 3, Cultural Resources. Since 

publication of the DEIS, additional field surveys have been conducted to further 

refine the springs and seeps inventory, the analysis area considered has been 

reviewed and found to be appropriate, and consideration was given to the 

threshold of groundwater drawdown considered in light of the accuracy of the 

groundwater models. Technical edits suggested to the seep and spring inventory 

were considered and incorporated if appropriate. All mitigation and monitoring 

measures associated with water resources are described in the FEIS; many 

mitigation measures suggested during public comment were analyzed by the 

Forest for appropriateness and incorporated if feasible. Impacts to other surface 

waters, including perennial streams, is also analyzed in Chapter 3, Seeps, 

Springs, and Riparian Areas. Impacts to wells are analyzed in Chapter 3, 

Groundwater Quantity. Impacts to surface water quality including sedimentation 

impacts and geomorphological changes is analyzed in Chapter 3, Surface Water 

Quality. Impacts from climate change and current trends such as the ongoing

drought are also appropriately analyzed in these sections.

G-34 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

provide further analysis of riparian 

areas, including determinations 

regarding riparian maps, and identify 

appropriate actions to mitigate these 

impacts.

In response to public comments, the Forest Service has refined many aspects of 

the analysis of riparian areas, including surface waters and riparian vegetation, 

both that associated with ephemeral washes as well as that associated with 

standing or flowing water sources. The FEIS has consolidated analysis of all 

these related features into a new section of the FEIS (Chapter 3, Seeps, Springs, 

and Riparian Areas) in order to reduce confusion, as previously these features 

were analyzed under groundwater, surface water, and biology sections. 

The method of analyzing impacts to riparian vegetation has also been refined, 

focusing more on functional effects on riparian vegetation due to changes in 

water sources. This method assesses the type and species of vegetation present, 

the expected changes in either surface water flow and/or groundwater levels, and 

the expected impact those changes will have on vegetation. In response to public 

comments, the FEIS also includes a more detailed analysis of the potential 

impacts to the reach of Lower Davidson Canyon that has been designated as an 

Outstanding Arizona Water. In addition, in response to public comments there 

has been a reassessment of the various data sources available for mapping 

riparian areas. These sources are clearly identified, as are the reasons for using 

them, and the limitations inherent in those data sources. Finally, additional 

mitigation measures with respect to riparian resources have been detailed and 

assessed.

The Coronado National Forest should 

revise the EIS to disclose how potable 

water for employees, water related to 

dust mitigation, and water for 

construction purposes (concrete pads) 

will be obtained.

Clarification of the source of water to be used during construction or prior to the 

supply pipeline completion is now included in Chapter 2 of the FEIS.

The Coronado National Forest should 

comply with a new United States 

Forest Service policy stating that 

hydrologic connections between 

surface water and groundwater on 

United States Forest Service lands 

should be presumed unless proven 

otherwise in the local setting.

The FEIS follows the new Forest Service guidance that indicates hydrologic 

connections between surface waters and groundwater should be presumed unless 

proven otherwise. With respect to Cienega Creek, Empire Gulch, Gardner 

Canyon, and other water resources located on or near the Las Cienegas National 

Conservation Area, these resources are presumed to be connected with the 

regional aquifer and thus have the potential to be impacted by the mine pit. With 

respect to individual springs, where sufficient field data exist to suggest springs 

or seeps arise from local sources and not regional groundwater, the Forest Service 

considers this evidence in determining the potential connection. Where 

insufficient evidence exists, the water sources for springs are identified as being 

unknown and the impact is considered "Possible". For the springs in Lower 

Davidson Canyon, multiple lines of evidence are considered in determining the 

possible connection to regional groundwater and the analysis follows from this 

evidence.

Groundwater Quality and Geochemistry

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

address the possible presence and 

release of underground storage tanks or 

historical contaminant residues in soil 

in the area from previous mining 

efforts, as well as their effects on soils 

or water.

Potential existing groundwater contamination is analyzed as part of the Affected 

Environment in Chapter 3, Groundwater Quality and Geochemistry. While 

historic land use exists that could have potentially contaminated soils, particularly 

historic mining and processing, soil sampling conducted by Rosemont for 

existing soil contamination does not suggest the presence of existing widespread 

soil contamination.

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project G-35
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

revise the water quality analysis to 

include a more rigorous examination of 

the potential for seepage or leaching 

from waste rock, heap leach, and pit 

lake facilities, or from blasting, 

disclosing the full chemistry of the 

seepage, the potential for acid mine 

drainage, and the relationship of water 

quality to water quality standards, and 

should discuss appropriate measures to 

prevent impacts to surface and ground 

waters, including a long-term 

monitoring plan.

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper project 

to move forward, because of water 

quality impacts from toxic metals 

leaching into the groundwater and 

surface water

Impacts to surface water and groundwater quality are fully analyzed in Chapter 3, 

Surface Water Quality and Chapter 3, Groundwater Quality and Geochemistry. 

This analysis includes assessments of runoff water quality, sediment loads, 

geomorphology, and the expected success of any mitigation measures like Best 

Management Practices. Additional baseline surface and groundwater quality has 

also been conducted and incorporated into the FEIS, as has a complete 

description of the types and durations of all geochemical tests run by Rosemont. 

An independent review of surface water and sediment modeling methods was 

also conducted and the results have been included in the FEIS, as have 

independent reviews in response to public comments of the geochemical 

modeling and assumptions related to the potential for groundwater contamination

and predicted pit lake water quality, including the need for mineralogical 

analysis; details of these reviews are included in the project record. Additional 

analysis has also been incorporated to assess impacts to Outstanding Arizona 

Waters in Lower Davidson Canyon and Cienega Creek, see Chapter 3, Seeps, 

Springs, and Riparian Areas. The Forest has also reviewed and recalculated the 

applicable surface water quality standards and clearly identified the hardness 

values used to calculate those standards, and clearly detailed the arsenic standard 

used for analysis and why it was selected. The Forest has also considered the 

Rosemont ore body in relation to other mines in Arizona that have had water 

quality problems, and has detailed this comparison in Chapter 3, Groundwater 

Quality and Geochemistry. Details of all control practices like liners or leak 

detection/containment systems specified by the aquifer protection permit are also 

now fully detailed in Chapter 3, Groundwater Quality and Geochemistry; 

however, discussion of treatment or remediation is inappropriate, as any actual 

contamination event is speculative based upon the best available analysis. 

Geochemical modeling and analysis was based on a suite of tests, including 

MWMP, SPLP, column tests, and humidity cell tests; these tests are described in 

aggregate in Chapter 3, Groundwater Quality and Geochemistry with full details 

available in the project record. While some detection limits for various 

constituents exceed the water quality standards for certain tests, the entire suite of 

geochemical tests contains samples at or below the applicable water quality 

standards and were considered in the geochemical modeling. Recognizing that 

predictions do not mean that unexpected effects will not occur, monitoring plans 

are also included as an attachment to the FEIS.

The Coronado National Forest should 

evaluate and disclose the risk of 

production wells drawing the Sierrita 

sulfate plume into wells within the 

cone of depression.

The analysis contained in the FEIS (Chapter 3, Groundwater Quality) regarding 

the potential impact of mine supply pumping on the Sierrita sulfate plume has 

been modified. Two changes have been made. First, a more full description has 

been added of the location of the sulfate plume and the expected remedy to be 

employed by Sierrita. Second, a further analysis of flow vectors with and without 

mine water supply pumping has been considered to determine whether the mine 

supply pumping would have a substantial effect on the sulfate plume. The Forest 

Service believes the results of the modeling conducted is sufficient to analyze the 

effect of mine supply pumping on the plume, as it fully describes the changes to 

gradient and flow direction that are expected to occur.

The Coronado National Forest should 

address effects of the pit lake on water 

quality, water table, wildlife, etc. and 

provide information on mitigation of 

these effects.

The pit lake is modeled as exceeding some surface water and aquifer water 

quality standards as described in the FEIS (Chapter 3, Groundwater Quality and 

Geochemistry), and the effect of those modeled water quality exceedances on 

wildlife are also analyzed in the FEIS (Chapter 3, Biological Resources). 

As discussed in the Groundwater Quality section, neither aquifer nor surface 

water quality standards have binding regulatory standing with respect to a pit 

lake. However, this does not forestall the need for the Forest Service to analyze 

the potential effects on wildlife, including bird species.

G-36 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

improve the pit lake model and provide 

estimates of water quality condition 

over time.

The geochemistry of the pit lake has been fully analyzed in the FEIS (Chapter 3, 

Groundwater Quality and Geochemistry). The Forest Service has undertaken 

extensive peer review by independent experts in the field of geochemistry to 

ensure that adequate methodologies and assumptions were utilized in the 

modeling. The full extent of this peer review is available in the project record, 

and includes specific analysis of the questions concerning the pit lake water 

quality model raised by Pima County and Dr. Tom Myers. Based on the body of 

work produced during this peer review process, the Forest Service is satisfied that 

the geochemical analysis conducted is reasonable and appropriate.

The Coronado National Forest should 

provide additional information on 

leaching tests.

The Forest Service has undertaken extensive peer review by independent experts 

in the field of geochemistry to ensure that adequate methodologies and 

assumptions were utilized in the modeling. The full extent of this peer review is 

available in the project record. Among other aspects, peer review included 

analysis of the limitations of the various leaching tests, the number and type of 

samples relied upon for the geochemical modeling, and the assumptions 

incorporated into the modeling. Based on the body of work produced during this 

peer review process, the Forest Service is satisfied that the geochemical analysis 

conducted is reasonable and appropriate. One update to the FEIS has been the 

inclusion of a more detailed description of the various types of leaching tests 

conducted and samples available to support the geochemical modeling (Chapter 

3, Groundwater Quality and Geochemistry). The Forest Service recognizes that 

modeling represents a prediction of impacts, and cannot be taken as proof that 

impacts won't occur. Therefore, in part based on concerns raised during public 

comments, the discussion of surface and groundwater quality also explicitly 

identifies the monitoring that will be in place in order to ascertain into the future 

that modeled predictions were correct. The FEIS contains a detailed monitoring 

plan that describes the process that will be followed in assuring that the 

Rosemont project is implemented according the FEIS and ROD.

The Coronado National Forest should 

discuss the efficacy of the proposed 

bacterial metal removal processes as 

well as how it plans to dispose of the 

biohazard and bioengineered wastes 

created from these processes.

The biological treatment systems described in the FEIS are provided as proof of 

concept that there exists biological treatment that would sufficiently reduce 

concentrations of metals in the heap leach draindown below water quality 

standards. Any actual treatment system would be designed based on samples 

collected during operation. Biological treatment systems are widely used and 

often use naturally occurring bacteria, and will not require any special 

consideration. The FEIS now contains details of how heap leach draindown 

would be accessed, collected, and sampled following closure of the heap leach 

pad and encapsulation in waste rock (Chapter 3, Groundwater Quality and 

Geochemistry). Importantly, the heap leach draindown cannot be discharged to 

the environment if the treatment proves ineffective. In this case, active treatment 

would need to be undertaken until draindown ceases. Also note that the heap 

leach process has been removed from the Preferred Alternative.

Surface Water Quantity

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

investigate the validity of the 

company’s surface water rights.

Impacts to surface water rights are analyzed in the FEIS (Chapter 3, Surface 

Water Quantity). With respect to the groundwater right required to pump water in 

the Santa Cruz Basin, the Forest has reviewed the water right documentation 

obtained from the Arizona Department of Water Resources.

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project G-37
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

revise the EIS to disclose impacts to 

floodplains, address compliance with 

local floodplain management 

standards, and disclose mitigation that 

would reduce the risk of flood loss.

Impacts to downstream surface water quantity, including average and peak flows, 

is included in Chapter 3, Surface Water Quantity. Overall, there will be a 

reduction in surface flow under all alternatives, and a reduction in flooding risk. 

An independent review of surface water and sediment modeling methods was 

conducted by the Forest and the results have been included in the FEIS. 

The regulatory framework under which Rosemont will have to comply with 

floodplain regulations has been identified to the extent considered appropriate by 

the Forest.

The Coronado National Forest should 

revise the EIS stormwater analysis to 

include revised precipitation, runoff 

volume, and watershed condition data; 

recalculate stormwater storage needs 

and flooding risks; and identify 

appropriate measures to reduce adverse 

impacts to downstream waters, 

including a full stormwater pollution 

prevention plan for public review and 

comment that discusses culvert, 

compliance dam, and main drain 

maintenance; post-closure measures; 

and how un-impacted stormwaters 

would be conveyed to downstream 

areas.

Numerous public comments were received identifying the possibility of extreme 

weather events and questioning whether the design factors upon which the mine 

plan has been prepared are sufficient. The Forest relied upon independent peer 

review of the stormwater management plan submitted by Rosemont to identify 

any areas of concern or improper design. This resulted in modifications to 

stormwater management plans, and in part a complete redesign of stormwater 

management for the Preferred Alternative, which has resolved the disagreements 

expressed during the peer review process. The Forest has determined that the 

design factors used for stormwater facilities are appropriate. The possibility that a 

larger storm or runoff event is not sufficient to dictate design criteria; the 

probability of whether it will occur is the appropriate measure for dictating 

design criteria. Design criteria are fully disclosed in Chapter 3, Surface Water 

Quantity and Chapter 2. With respect to surface water runoff modeling, 

comments were provided specifically regarding the applicability of the surface 

water modeling techniques used by Rosemont, including key assumptions 

regarding precipitation events selected for runoff modeling. The Forest 

contracted additional independent modeling runs in response to these public 

comments and the results are summarized in Chapter 3, Surface Water Quantity.

G-38 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Surface Water Quality

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

revise the EIS to disclose impacts to 

both the downstream quantity and 

quality of Davidson Canyon and 

Cienega Creek, designated as 

Outstanding Arizona Waters and as 

Waters of the United States, including 

compliance with applicable state and 

federal laws and permits regarding 

these waters, and appropriate measures 

to mitigate impacts.

The FEIS includes an expanded analysis of impacts to surface water sources. 

There are five major analyses incorporated into the FEIS. 1) The analysis of 

impacts to Outstanding Arizona Waters in both Cienega Creek and Lower 

Davidson Canyon has been expanded in the FEIS (Chapter 3, Seeps, Springs, and 

Riparian). For Lower Davidson Canyon, the expanded analysis incorporates all 

available evidence as to the origin of water arising from Reach 2 and Escondido 

Springs, the potential effect of reducing stormwater flow from the headwaters of 

Barrel Canyon, the potential for geomorphic/sediment changes downstream of 

the mine site, analysis of the nomination criteria for Lower Davidson Canyon as 

an Outstanding Arizona Water, and analysis of potential changes to water quality. 

2) In response to public comments and continued investigation of landforming 

alternatives, the Forest Service has worked with the proponent to redesign 

stormwater management on the project site. The Forest Service requested that 

this redesign included a variety of conceptual goals, including the desire to allow 

as much stormwater as possible to flow downstream, the desire to reduce storage 

of stormwater on tailings and waste rock facilities, the desire to incorporate more 

natural landforms to the extent possible, and the desire to reduce the long-term 

maintenance issues associated with the flow through under drains. Both the FEIS 

and the administrative record reflect the redesigned stormwater management 

plan, which is described in Chapter 2. 3) Analysis of surface waters and 

associated riparian resources has been refined to include an assessment of the 

relation between water sources and the function of riparian vegetation. This is a 

shift away from relying solely on acreages or tallies. The refined riparian 

assessment analyzes the vegetation types present, expected changes in surface or 

groundwater levels, and the response of that vegetation to those changes. This 

assessment is included in Chapter 3, Seeps, Springs, and Riparian. 4) Mitigation 

measures for surface water resources and riparian vegetation have been 

incorporated into the impacts assessment in appropriate sections. 5) Uncertainty 

of models has been further evaluated, including obtaining finer detail in the 

magnitude and timing of impacts, and areas of professional disagreement.

The Coronado National Forest should 

verify the baseline quality samples in 

relation to water quality standards.

The Surface Water Quality section of the FEIS has been updated with technical 

and editorial edits. Note that additional water quality samples have also been 

obtained and are reported in the FEIS.

Biological Resources

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to move forward, due 

to loss of trees, timber, and forest in the 

area

The FEIS contains a number of updates, including a description of removal and 

disposal of trees in the project area. Refer to the Fire and Fuels and Soils and 

Revegetation sections of the FEIS for further information. As described in 

Chapter 1 of the DEIS and FEIS, although the Forest Service may reasonably 

regulate mining activities to protect surface resources, there are statutory and 

constitutional limits to its discretion. The Forest Service may reject an 

unreasonable Mine Plan of Operation but cannot categorically prohibit mining or 

deny reasonable and legal mineral operations under the mining laws. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project G-39
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to move forward 

because of impacts to general wildlife 

populations, movement, and habitat.

The duration of impacts (temporal bounds of analysis area) and impacts on 

biological resources has been updated and addressed in the Biological Resources 

and Required Disclosures sections of Chapter 3 in the FEIS. Under federal law 

and regulation, it is the responsibility of the Forest Service to analyze and 

disclose the social and environmental impacts that would result from 

implementation of the proposed mining project. Updated analyses of impacts 

owing to changes in surface and groundwater quality and quantity (including 

seeps and springs), dust and air pollutants, noise and vibrations, artificial night 

lighting, and increased vehicular traffic on special status and threatened and 

endangered species, migratory birds, and the Santa Rita Important Bird Area can 

be found in the Biological Resources section of chapter 3 of the FEIS. Further, 

consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for species listed under the 

Endangered Species Act has been completed. The updated analysis addresses 

habitat loss and modification, movement corridors, and habitat fragmentation 

among other factors. Impacts from climate change and current trends such as the 

ongoing drought are also analyzed in this section. Updated mitigation measures 

for impacts to biological resources have been incorporated into the FEIS; refer to 

the mitigation and monitoring appendix of the FEIS for a description of 

mitigation measures, and the Biological Resources section of Chapter 3 for a 

discussion of mitigation effectiveness. The list of reasonably foreseeable future 

actions and the cumulative effects discussion in the Biological Resources section 

has been updated in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. As stated in the DEIS and FEIS, 

although the Forest Service may reasonably regulate mining activities to protect 

surface resources, there are statutory and constitutional limits to its discretion. 

The Forest Service may reject an unreasonable Mine Plan of Operation but 

cannot categorically prohibit mining or deny reasonable and legal mineral 

operations under the mining laws. Refer to the Biological Resources section of 

Chapter 3 in the FEIS for further information.

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to move forward 

because of impacts to special status or 

threatened and endangered species.

The Forest Service has analyzed special status species according to applicable 

laws and regulations. Forest Service sensitive species were analyzed in a 

Biological Evaluation that determined the potential impacts to the viability of 

these species. Analyses of species that have special status under other 

jurisdictions, such as BLM, State or County, in addition to Forest Service 

sensitive species, have been updated in the FEIS. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) is responsible for administering the ESA, a federal law that 

requires Federal agencies (e.g., Forest Service) to use their authority to conserve 

endangered and threatened species. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires Federal 

agencies to consult with the USFWS to ensure that the actions they authorize, 

fund, or conduct are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed 

species or modify designated critical habitat of such species. The Forest Service 

determined that the proposed Rosemont Copper Project may affect species that 

are listed as threatened and endangered under ESA, and initiated formal 

consultation with USFWS in June 2012. This consultation process has been 

completed, and the USFWS determined that the Forest Service preferred 

alternative would not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or 

modify designated critical habitat of such species. The USFWS issued a 

Biological Opinion with a number of non-discretionary conservation measures, 

reasonable and prudent measures, and terms and conditions that must be 

implemented in order to remain compliant with the ESA. These requirements will 

be incorporated into the Forest Service Record of Decision. Refer to the 

Biological Opinion, which is contained in the appendix of the FEIS, for further 

information. Updated analyses of special status and threatened and endangered 

species can be found in the Biological Resources section of the FEIS.

G-40 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to move forward 

because of impacts to migratory birds.

The Coronado National Forest 

should further analyze the 

project's potential impacts to all avian 

species in the project area, including 

migratory birds and raptors, and 

address the 2001 memorandum of

understanding between the United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service and 

the Coronado National Forest.

Impacts to the Santa Rita Important Bird Area, migratory birds, and the habitat of 

bird species of concern within the analysis area, have been revised and are 

addressed and disclosed in the Biological Resources section of the FEIS.

The Coronado National Forest should 

reanalyze the presence of sensitive or 

special status plant and animal species 

in the project area.

The species identified in the comments linked to this Concern Statement have 

been reviewed to determine whether they should be included in analysis, or 

whether current analysis should be revised. The result is an updated description 

of effects to sensitive species in the FEIS. Please refer to the Biological 

Resources section of Chapter 3 in the FEIS for detailed information.

The Coronado National Forest should 

analyze wildlife mortality from 

increased traffic volume, and evaluate 

the effectiveness of measures to 

mitigate impacts such as road 

crossings, bridges, etc.

The Coronado National forest should 

not allow the Rosemount Copper 

project to move forward, because of 

increased wildlife mortality due to 

increased roads and volume of traffic.

The impact of noise, lighting, and increased traffic to wildlife and public safety 

has been addressed in the FEIS. Please refer to the Biological Resources and 

Public Health and Safety sections of the FEIS for further information. Both the 

DEIS and FEIS have analyzed the impacts to wildlife and wildlife corridors from 

increased traffic associated with the proposed mine, including an analysis of 

potential impacts to habitat connectivity and increased direct mortality from road 

kills. Please refer to the Biological Resources section in Chapter 3 of the FEIS for 

further detail

The Coronado National Forest should 

further analyze impacts to wildlife 

linkages and corridors, and resulting 

decrease in gene flow and 

biodiversity, from the proposed project.

The analysis of animal movement corridors in the FEIS, and potential associated 

impacts on gene flow and biodiversity, has been updated in response to public 

and agency comments. Please see the Biological Resources section in Chapter 3 

of the FEIS for further detail.

The Coronado National Forest should 

allow the Rosemont Copper Company 

project to move forward, because 

impacts to general wildlife populations, 

movement, and habitat will be 

minimized

While the Rosemont Copper Project contains a number of mitigation measures 

and monitoring procedures related to wildlife, implementation of this project will 

impact a number of wildlife species. These impacts are described in detail in the 

FEIS and supporting biological resource reports.

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to move forward 

because of loss of biodiversity and 

impacts to habitat for a wide variety of 

plant and animal species.

Biodiversity includes all organisms, species, and populations; the genetic 

variation among these; and all their complex assemblages of communities and 

ecosystems. The Rosemont Copper FEIS addresses the most critical components 

of biodiversity through the analysis and disclosure of impacts to terrestrial and 

aquatic plants and animals, and mitigative effectiveness, that occur in and 

surrounding the project area. Particular emphasis is placed on those species 

whose population viability is a concern. Please refer to Chapter 3 of the FEIS for 

further information. As noted in Chapter 1 of both the DEIS and FEIS, under 

mining laws the Forest Service may reasonably regulate mining activities to 

protect surface resources, however there are statutory and constitutional limits to 

its discretion. The Forest Service may reject an unreasonable Mine Plan of 

Operation but cannot categorically prohibit mining or deny reasonable and legal 

mineral operations under the mining laws.

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project G-41
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to move forward, 

because of degradation of native 

vegetation that could permanently alter 

the landscape

Impacts to native vegetation are disclosed in the Biological Resources section of 

Chapter 3 in the FEIS.

The Coronado National Forest should 

revise the EIS to provide updated 

information on invasive plant species 

at the site, and revise the analysis to 

address all direct and indirect impacts 

from the potential spread of invasive 

plants; the efficacy of proposed control 

measures; and compliance with all 

applicable laws.

Since the publication of the DEIS, Rosemont has prepared a preliminary Invasive 

Species Management Plan. The plan, along with existing Forest Service direction 

for controlling invasive species, identifies potential invasive species concerns and 

management strategies to reduce the risk of invasive species from spreading. 

Refer to Chapter 2 and the Biological Resources section in Chapter 3 of the FEIS 

for further information.

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to go forward, 

because it would negatively impact 

threatened and endangered cats, 

including the jaguar and ocelot.

The Coronado National Forest should 

further analyze the project's potential 

impacts to the jaguar and the ocelot.

Jaguars and ocelots are two of the species listed under the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA) that are addressed in the Biological Assessment, the DEIS, and the 

FEIS. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for 

administering the ESA, a federal law that requires Federal agencies (e.g., Forest 

Service) to use their authority to conserve endangered and threatened species. 

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires Federal agencies to consult with the USFWS 

to ensure that the actions they authorize, fund, or conduct are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or modify designated 

critical habitat of such species. The Forest Service determined that the proposed 

Rosemont Copper Project may affect species that are listed as threatened and 

endangered under ESA, and initiated formal consultation with USFWS in June 

2012. This consultation process has been completed, and the USFWS determined 

that the Forest Service preferred alternative would not jeopardize the continued 

existence of any listed species or modify designated critical habitat of such 

species. The USFWS issued a Biological Opinion with a number of conservation 

measures, reasonable and prudent measures, and terms and conditions that must 

be implemented in order to remain compliant with the ESA. These requirements 

will be incorporated into the Record of Decision will be met. Refer to the

Biological Opinion, which is contained in the appendix of the FEIS, for further 

information.

G-42 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

further analyze the project's potential 

impacts to threatened and endangered 

amphibian and fish species, and also 

analyze recovery and mitigation efforts 

for these species (including impacts 

from beaver and non-native species 

introduction).

The Forest Service has analyzed special status species according to applicable 

laws and regulations. Forest Service sensitive species were analyzed in a 

Biological Evaluation that determined the potential impacts to the viability of 

these species. Analyses of species that have special status under other 

jurisdictions, such as BLM, State or County, in addition to Forest Service 

sensitive species, have been updated in the FEIS. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) is responsible for administering the ESA, a federal law that 

requires Federal agencies (e.g., Forest Service) to use their authority to conserve 

endangered and threatened species. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires Federal 

agencies to consult with the USFWS to ensure that the actions they authorize, 

fund, or conduct are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed 

species or modify designated critical habitat of such species. The Forest Service 

determined that the proposed Rosemont Copper Project may affect species that 

are listed as threatened and endangered under ESA, and initiated formal 

consultation with USFWS in June 2012. This consultation process has been 

completed, and the USFWS determined that the Forest Service preferred 

alternative would not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or 

modify designated critical habitat of such species. The USFWS issued a 

Biological Opinion with a number of conservation measures, reasonable and 

prudent measures, and terms and conditions that must be implemented in order to 

remain compliant with the ESA. These requirements will be incorporated into the 

Record of Decision. Refer to the Biological Opinion, which is located in the 

appendix of the FEIS, for further information. Updated analyses of impacts 

owing to groundwater drawdown, dust and air pollutants, noise and vibrations, 

artificial night lighting, and increased vehicular traffic on special status and 

threatened and endangered species can be found in the Biological Resources 

section of chapter 3 of the FEIS.

The Coronado National Forest should 

further analyze the project’s potential 

impacts to threatened and endangered 

plant species as well as recovery efforts 

for these species.

Huachuca water umbel and Pima pineapple cactus are two of the plant species 

listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that are addressed in the 

Biological Assessment, the DEIS, and the FEIS. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) is responsible for administering the ESA, a federal law that 

requires Federal agencies (e.g., Forest Service) to use their authority to conserve 

endangered and threatened species. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires Federal 

agencies to consult with the USFWS to ensure that the actions they authorize, 

fund, or conduct are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed 

species or modify designated critical habitat of such species. The Forest Service 

determined that the proposed Rosemont Copper Project may affect species that 

are listed as threatened and endangered under ESA, and initiated formal 

consultation with USFWS in June 2012. This consultation process has been 

completed, and the USFWS determined that the Forest Service preferred

alternative would not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or 

modify designated critical habitat of such species. The USFWS issued a 

Biological Opinion with a number of non-discretionary terms and conditions that 

must be implemented in order to remain compliant with the ESA. These terms 

and conditions will become part of the Record of Decision requirements and will 

be met. Refer to the Biological Opinion, which is contained in the appendix of 

the FEIS, for further information.

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the project to go forward 

because of impacts to Forest Service 

sensitive plant species, including 

Coleman’s coralroot and beardless 

chinchweed.

Species listed as sensitive by the Forest Service with potential to occur in areas to 

be impacted by the proposed project were evaluated in the Biological Evaluation 

and in the Biological Resources section of the DEIS and FEIS.

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project G-43
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

further analyze potential project 

impacts to special status or threatened 

and endangered reptile species.

The Forest Service has analyzed special status species according to applicable 

laws and regulations. Forest Service sensitive species have been analyzed in a 

Biological Evaluation that determined the potential impacts to the viability of 

these species. Species that have special status under other jurisdictions, such as 

BLM, State or County, have been addressed in the FEIS. Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) are addressed in the Biological Assessment, the DEIS, and the FEIS. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for administering the 

ESA, a federal law that requires Federal agencies (e.g., Forest Service) to use 

their authority to conserve endangered and threatened species. Section 7(a)(2) of 

the ESA requires Federal agencies to consult with the USFWS to ensure that the 

actions they authorize, fund, or conduct are not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any listed species or modify designated critical habitat of such 

species. Refer to the Biological Resources section of the FEIS and the appendix 

for further information.

The Coronado National Forest should 

further analyze the project's potential 

impact to special status invertebrate 

species.

The Coronado National Forest has updated the analysis of the project's potential 

impact to special status invertebrate species. See the Biological Resources section 

in chapter 3 of the FEIS for details

The Coronado National Forest should 

further analyze the project’s potential 

impacts to bat species and habitat.

Analysis of impacts to bat species and habitat has been updated and evaluated in 

the FEIS. Please refer to the Biological Resources section in Chapter 3 of the 

FEIS for further information.

The Coronado National Forest should 

address impacts of artificial night 

lighting to animals.

Impacts to wildlife from artificial night lighting, including bird species, special 

status species, and species listed under the Endangered Species Act, have been 

updated and are addressed and disclosed in the Biological Resources section in 

Chapter 3 of the FEIS.

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to go forward, 

because the project will impact sky 

island resources

The Forest Service is following its obligation under federal law and regulation to 

thoroughly analyze and disclose both positive and negative impacts of proposals 

such as the Rosemont Copper Project, and to consider these impacts in a Final 

EIS and in making a decision on whether and how to implement such a project. 

As such, the impacts of the Rosemont Copper Project on the environment is 

described and disclosed in Chapter 3 of the FEIS.

Land Ownership and Boundary Management

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

design mitigation measures to ensure 

that the site can be reopened for future 

mining.

Nothing in the current decision would preclude future mining, provided it is 

consistent with all applicable laws and regulations.

The Coronado National Forest should 

clarify who Rosemont Copper 

Company can sell their land to and 

address successor ownership and 

responsibility for reclamation.

The Forest Service has no authority to control who a proponent such as Rosemont 

Copper can or cannot sell its assets to. Rosemont or any successor company will 

be required by law to follow all requirements set forth in the FEIS and Record 

of Decision, and to comply with applicable federal laws and regulations. 

The Coronado will ensure that monitoring and reporting occurs in order to ensure 

that operations are occurring according the FEIS and Record of Decision. 

Bonding is the mechanism that is used to assure that reclamation activities will be 

carried out. Bonding instruments will ensure that funds are available so that the 

Forest Service can contract for critical reclamation work should the company be 

unable or unwilling to complete.

The Coronado National Forest should 

ensure that the deed restriction for 

Alternative 4 prohibits impacts to 

McCleary Canyon.

Deed restrictions are sometimes applied to federal land that is subsequently 

transferred to private, local or state ownership. Since the federal land surrounding 

the Rosemont Copper Project is not proposed for transfer out of federal status, 

there is no need for a deed restriction.

G-44 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Livestock Grazing

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

allow the Rosemont Copper Company 

project to move forward, because it 

will promote ranching and livestock 

grazing.

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to move forward, 

because it will impact ranching and 

livestock grazing.

Ranching and livestock grazing are addressed in the Livestock Grazing section in 

Chapter 3 of the FEIS. The Rosemont Copper Project would impact livestock 

grazing to some extent because grazing would be excluded from the area within 

the security fence. A long-term goal would be to reopen this area to grazing once 

the mine is closed and reclamation has been completed. It is also important to 

understand the Forest Service role in terms of decision space and legal sideboards 

regarding the Rosemont Copper Project. The Forest Service legal authority 

regarding mining proposals is limited. As noted in Chapter 1 of both the DEIS 

and FEIS, the Forest Service may reasonably regulate mining activities to protect 

surface resources. However, there are statutory and constitutional limits to its 

discretion. The Forest Service may reject an unreasonable Mine Plan of 

Operation but cannot categorically prohibit mining or deny reasonable and legal 

mineral operations under the mining laws. The Forest Service is required to 

assess and disclose potential social and environmental impacts in an EIS. 

The Forest is required to disclose environmental impacts and benefits in the 

NEPA document and consider those in the final decision. Impacts and benefits of 

the proposed project have been analyzed using the best information available, and 

the results disclosed in the FEIS

The Coronado National Forest should 

improve its livestock grazing section to 

include impacts to allotments, livestock 

health, and livestock water supply, as 

well as address the efficacy of 

reclamation measures as related to 

grazing.

The Livestock and Grazing section of Chapter 3 in the FEIS has been updated. 

This and the Seeps, Springs and Riparian sections of the FEIS contain updated 

information about livestock watering sources. It is important to note that federal 

air quality standards will be met at and beyond the perimeter fence. These 

standards were adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to protect 

public health (primary standards) and public welfare against decreased visibility 

as well as damage to animals, crops, vegetation and buildings (secondary 

standards). The FEIS contains a requirement for revision of allotment 

management plans for those allotments directly impacted by the project. Specific 

aspects of allotment management on those allotments is best made in those sitespecific NEPA decisions.

The Coronado National Forest should 

consider other alternatives to fencing to 

protect riparian species from livestock 

grazing.

This potential mitigation has reconsidered since the DEIS was issued. Decisions 

pertaining to grazing are best made in review and update to Allotment 

Management Plans. Rosemont Copper has proposed to submit a proposal for 

updating the Allotment Management Plans for the Forest Service grazing 

allotments for which they hold permits within one year of issuance of the Forest 

Service ROD for the Rosemont Copper Project. Fencing of riparian areas is one 

of a number of grazing-related issues that would be dealt with in that NEPA 

process, which would include public participation and consultation with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service.

Dark Skies

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to go forward, 

because of impacts to dark skies and 

the resulting impacts to the astronomy 

industry.

The Coronado National Forest should 

allow the Rosemont Copper Company 

project to move forward, because 

impacts to dark sky will be minimal.

As a Federal agency, the Forest Service must follow federal laws and regulations 

as they currently exist, which includes addressing potential impacts of the 

proposed project in an EIS. The DEIS described both the benefits of the proposal, 

as well as the impacts. Based upon comments on the DEIS, a number of 

mitigation measures were added, and analysis was updated. A review of the FEIS 

will indicate that the Rosemont Preferred Alternative will have detrimental 

impacts, some of them significant, as well as beneficial effects. Although the 

Forest Service may reasonably regulate mining activities to protect surface 

resources, there are statutory and constitutional limits to its discretion. The Forest 

Service may reject an unreasonable Mine Plan of Operation but cannot 

categorically prohibit mining or deny reasonable and legal mineral operations 

under the mining laws.

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project G-45
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

quantify the socioeconomic costs from 

the loss of dark skies or increased dust, 

including but not limited to the 

economic cost to the astronomy 

industry. 

The Coronado National Forest should 

revise the dark sky analysis to include 

a more up-to-date lighting plan, data 

and reader-friendly modeling results; 

conduct nighttime visual 

simulations; expand the analysis area 

to include local observatories; 

and address the impacts of dust on 

night skies and sky brightness.

The Coronado National Forest should 

identify and discuss the efficacy of 

lighting controls and other measures to 

mitigate impacts to dark skies.

A number of updates have taken place regarding the impact to night skies and the 

astronomy industry since the DEIS was released. Rosemont Copper has updated 

its Lighting Plan, as well as applying various lighting mitigation, in order to 

reduce the amount of lumens produced and thus the impact on night sky 

brightness. The result is a substantially reduced amount of night brightness from 

the mine. Secondly, the Socioeconomic analysis has been updated to better 

address the economic impact of the mine on the astronomy industry in southern 

Arizona. Please refer to the Dark Skies and Socioeconomics and Environmental 

Justice section of Chapter 3 in the FEIS for more details.

The Coronado National Forest should 

expand the visual and dark skies 

analysis area to include non–Coronado 

National Forest lands.

The bounds of analysis for both visual and dark skies include broad areas that are 

applicable to the potential impacts. The bounds of analysis should not be 

confused with the Project Area, which is the area immediately surrounding the 

mine that contains the majority of direct ground disturbing activities. The 

rationale for the bounds of analysis utilized for direct, indirect and cumulative 

effects analysis are provided in Chapter 3 of the FEIS.

Visual Resources Recreation and Wilderness

Public Concern Statement Response

The USFS should conduct a more 

thorough analysis of impacts to the Mt. 

Wrightson Wilderness Area and the 

Las Cienegas National Conservation 

Area, particularly regarding the 

impacts a mining operation will have 

on the experience of wilderness visitors 

and on the wilderness itself. The Forest 

Service must prove that wilderness 

character will not be compromised by 

their decisions.

Impacts from the proposed project were addressed for the Mt. Wrightson 

Wilderness Area and Las Cienegas National Conservation Area in the Visual 

Quality and the Recreation and Wilderness sections in Chapter 3 of the DEIS. 

The impacts to the wilderness character of Mt.Wrightson has been reviewed and 

updated for the FEIS. Mt. Wrightson was not specifically included in the air 

quality modeling as it is not a federally listed Class I area. All areas that are not 

Class I are considered Class II. However, the model does estimate the maximum 

ambient air concentrations from the Project, at the perimeter fenceline. Thus, 

all other Class II areas, including Mt. Wrightson, would have ambient air 

concentrations less than this modeled maximum. In addition, in response to 

comments on the DEIS, a number of mitigation and monitoring measures were 

added, and several analyses revised. The revised analysis indicates that all air 

quality thresholds set under the Clean Air Act and other laws, regulations, 

policies, and plans would be met by the preferred alternative. These standards are 

enforceable under the air quality permit, which Rosemont has obtained from the 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.

The Coronado National Forest should 

address methodological issues in the 

visual section, including the choice of 

the visual management system used for 

analysis and use of panoramic 

photographs.

Additional details of the analysis procedures have been added to the Visual 

Quality section in Chapter 3 of the FEIS.

The Coronado National Forest should 

analyze visual impacts from supporting 

infrastructure.

The visual impact from the power line and power poles associated with the 

Rosemont project are addressed in the FEIS. Also included are ancillary facilities 

such as the processing plant and other buildings located at the plant site. Please 

refer to the Scenic Quality section in Chapter 3 of the FEIS for details.

G-46 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to go forward, 

because of impacts to scenic quality of 

the Santa Rita mountains, and resulting 

visual impacts to residents, tourists, 

and nature lovers.

The Coronado National Forest should 

allow the Rosemont Copper Company 

project to move forward, because 

impacts to scenery will be minimized.

The Coronado National Forest should 

allow the Rosemont Copper Company 

project to move forward, because it 

will minimize impacts to recreation.

Although the Forest Service may reasonably regulate mining activities to protect 

surface resources, there are statutory and constitutional limits to its discretion. 

The Forest Service may reject an unreasonable Mine Plan of Operation but 

cannot categorically prohibit mining or deny reasonable and legal mineral 

operations under the mining laws. The Forest Service has assessed and disclosed 

potential social and environmental impacts in an EIS, including effects to scenic 

quality. Even though the DEIS and FEIS state that all action alternatives would 

have significant, permanent impacts to scenic quality, the project would comply 

with applicable laws and regulations.

The Coronado National Forest should 

discuss impacts to the Arizona 

National Scenic Trail in the EIS and 

provide alternative alignments and 

mitigation measures for that trail.

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to move forward, 

because of impacts to the Arizona 

National Scenic Trail.

Further work with the Arizona Trail Association has occurred since the DEIS was 

released. A revised location on the east side of Highway 83 has been identified. 

Details about this location, its characteristics and its environmental impacts are 

contained in the Visual Quality and Recreation and Wilderness sections of 

Chapter 3 in the FEIS. Under mining laws, the Forest Service may reasonably 

regulate mining activities to protect surface resources, there are statutory and 

constitutional limits to its discretion. The Forest Service may reject an 

unreasonable Mine Plan of Operation but cannot categorically prohibit mining or 

deny reasonable and legal mineral operations under the mining laws. The Forest 

Service can require reasonable changes and mitigation measures, but does not 

have the authority to deny the project because it will impact the Arizona Trail

The Coronado National Forest should 

expand the visual impact analysis in 

the EIS to include additional 

viewpoints as well as provide the 

original technical report.

The visual analysis was reviewed in response to public comments. The visual 

resource specialist on the ID Team determined that the inclusion of additional 

viewpoints would not add to the disclosure of impacts to scenic quality. From an 

analysis standpoint, sensitive viewing locations were captured in the analysis, and 

new simulations/viewpoints are unnecessary because the new views being 

requested are far away (beyond 10 miles) from the project and similar 

views/visual impacts are shown in the existing simulations. The DEIS and FEIS 

clearly state that all action alternatives would have significant permanent impacts 

to scenic quality from a variety of viewpoints.

The Coronado National Forest should 

clarify the direct and cumulative visual 

impacts from mine components, such 

as waste rock piles, emphasizing 

how the scenic quality of local roads, 

trails, and analysis area as a 

whole would be impacted for residents 

and tourists.

Description of impacts to scenic quality have been reviewed and updated in 

response to public comments. Please refer to the Scenic Resources section in 

Chapter 3 of the FEIS for further details.

The Coronado National Forest should 

revise the EIS to address inadequacies 

in visual mitigation measures.

Visual mitigation has been updated in the FEIS. Please refer to the Mitigation and 

Monitoring section in Chapter 2, and the Visual Quality section in Chapter 3 of 

the FEIS for further detail.

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project G-47
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to move forward, 

because of negative impacts to tourism.

The Coronado National Forest should 

fully analyze the economic values 

associated with public lands, landscape 

amenities, recreation, visual resources, 

and local tourism and recreation 

communities such as Patagonia and 

Sonoita.

The Socioeconomic analysis has been updated in the FEIS to better address 

impacts to local tourism and recreation economies. While impacts to tourism and 

recreation economies are difficult to predict, the Forest worked with industry 

specialists to devise a scientifically sound approach that attempts to predict these 

impacts. That analysis and the predicted project impacts are described in the 

Socioeconomics section of Chapter 3. It is important to understand that the Forest 

Service’s legal authority regarding mining proposals is limited. The Forest 

Service is required to assess and disclose potential social and environmental 

impacts in an EIS and consider those in the final decision. However, as 

mentioned, the Forest Service may reasonably regulate mining activities to 

protect surface resources. However, there are statutory and constitutional limits to 

its discretion. The Forest Service may reject an unreasonable Mine Plan of 

Operation but cannot categorically prohibit mining or deny reasonable and legal 

mineral operations under the mining laws. Impacts and benefits of the proposed 

project have been analyzed using the best information available, and the results 

disclosed in the FEIS.

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper EIS to 

move forward due to the loss and 

destruction of recreation opportunities 

and reduced access. The DEIS does not 

adequately address the impact, loss and 

destruction of recreational uses and 

opportunities, including birding and 

wildlife observation; bicycle riding; 

equestrian use; driving for pleasure; 

recreational access from Highway 82; 

displaced and lost OHV use; hunting; 

hiking; experience and use of the 

Arizona Trail; and impacts to 

recreation and tourism.

Forest Service legal authority regarding mining proposals is limited. The Forest 

Service is required to assess and disclose potential social and environmental 

impacts in an EIS, and can require reasonable modifications to mine plans of 

operation and mitigation measures. The DEIS and FEIS state that all action 

alternatives would have impacts to recreational activities and opportunities, some 

for the life of the mine, and some permanently.

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to move forward, 

because of adverse impacts to solitude 

and serenity

It is important to understand the Forest Service role in terms of decision space 

and legal sideboards regarding the Rosemont Copper Project. The Forest Service 

legal authority regarding mining proposals is limited. There are statutory and 

constitutional limits to its discretion. The Forest Service may reject an 

unreasonable Mine Plan of Operation but cannot categorically prohibit mining or 

deny reasonable and legal mineral operations under the mining laws. The Forest 

Service is required to assess and disclose potential social and environmental 

impacts in an EIS and can require reasonable modifications to mine plans of 

operation and mitigation measures. Solitude and serenity were addressed by 

analyzing impacts from noise and vibrations, impacts to recreation, and impacts 

to cultural resources and environmental justice. The Forest is required to disclose 

environmental impacts and benefits in the NEPA document and consider those in 

the final decision. Impacts and benefits of the proposed project have been 

analyzed using the best information available, and the results disclosed in the 

FEIS.

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper EIS to 

move forward because of impacts to 

wild lands and designated wilderness 

areas.

It is important to note the difference between wild lands and areas that have been 

designated as wilderness areas through congressional action. The uses allowed 

within wilderness areas are specified by the 1964 Wilderness Act and the public 

law that established specific wilderness areas. Wild lands is a term that is used 

generically to refer to lands that are typically undeveloped and provide a variety 

of ecological, biological and social values. However, National Forest System 

lands outside of designated wilderness areas are open for a wider variety of 

multiple uses. Mining is an allowable use in both designated wilderness and wild 

lands outside of wilderness so long as the land has not been withdrawn from 

locatable mineral exploration and development. Impacts to both designated 

wilderness areas and wild lands have analyzed and effects disclosed in Chapter 3 

of the DEIS and FEIS. Please refer to the FEIS for more specific information.

G-48 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

provide additional information on 

impacts and mitigation for motorized 

recreation users, including impacts to 

popular off-highway vehicle areas as 

well as the potential for displacement 

of off-highway vehicle use to other 

areas.

The effects analysis for OHV use has been updated to address displacement more 

thoroughly. Please refer to the Recreation and Wilderness section of Chapter 3 in 

the FEIS for further information. Additionally, the Coronado has formed a team 

to address recreation use that will be displaced from the mine area under a 

separate NEPA process. Rosemont Copper has agreed to provide funding to the 

Coronado that could be applied to a planning effort to identify areas and 

infrastructure to accommodate displaced OHV use, and development of facilities 

for OHV use.

The Coronado National Forest should 

identify what trails and roads will be 

closed as a result of the Rosemont 

Copper Company project, and provide 

mitigation measures.

Information regarding the trails and roads that would be closed as a result of the 

Rosemont Copper Mine has been updated and added to the FEIS.

The Coronado National Forest should 

evaluate overall impacts to recreation 

use from population growth.

Population growth is considered in the analysis of impacts to recreation. Please 

refer to the Recreation section in Chapter 3 of the FEIS for further detail.

The Coronado National Forest should 

conduct additional analysis of 

recreation impacts from the proposed 

project, including providing the 

recreation specialist report for the 

project.

The analysis of impacts to recreational uses from the Rosemont project has been 

reviewed and updated to address additional uses and potential impacts to those 

users. Specialist Reports are used in some NEPA projects and not in others. There 

is no requirement that separate Specialist Reports be prepared. For the Rosemont 

Copper Project, all pertinent information regarding the recreation analysis is 

provided in the FEIS, and therefore a separate Specialist Report was deemed to 

be unnecessary. Please refer to the Recreation section in Chapter 3 of the FEIS 

for further information.

The Coronado National Forest should 

provide additional information about 

impacts and mitigation for specific 

non-motorized recreation users, 

including hunters, bicyclists, and 

equestrian riders.

Additional information has been added to the Recreation section in Chapter 3 of 

the FEIS to address bicycle, pedestrian, equestrian and other non-motorized use 

of the Rosemont area. New information regarding hunting impacts has also been 

incorporated.

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project G-49
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Hazardous Materials

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to move forward, 

because of potential impacts from the 

use and transportation of hazardous 

wastes.

The Coronado National Forest should 

revise its hazardous and waste 

materials analysis to clarify issues 

regarding the transport and storage of 

all hazardous materials (including 

explosives); identify types and 

quantities of materials (including 

MSDS sheets) to be transported and/or 

stored on-site; provide a risk 

assessment of spills (including the 

Rosemont Copper Company’s safety 

record) and disclose appropriate 

measures to reduce those risks, 

including storage procedures and 

disposal methods (including a 

discussion of the proposed on-site 

waste landfill’s capacity and 

compliance with local planning 

regulations, spill control plans, 

emergency response procedures, and 

cleanup responsibility).

Since the publication of the DEIS, the Preferred Alternative has been updated to 

exclude a heap leach and associated SX/EW facilities. The Hazardous Materials 

and The Hazardous Materials and Public Health and Safety Sections in Chapter 3 

of the FEIS have been updated to reflect the removal of the heap leach and 

SX/EW facilities for the Preferred Alternative and the subsequent reduction of 

use and transport of hazardous materials. The Public Health and Safety sections 

in Chapter 3 of the FEIS have been updated to reflect the reduced risk of 

hazardous materials spills from storage and transport.

Fuels and Fire Management

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

disclose how many trees would be 

removed and replaced by the project, 

and address compliance with legal 

constraints to cutting down timber in 

the national forest.

The environmental impacts of vegetation removal, including trees, has been 

addressed, primarily in the Biological Resources, Fire and Fuels, and Soils and 

Revegetation sections in Chapter 3. The Fire and Fuels section includes an 

estimate of the amount of woody material that is proposed for removal from the 

project area. Any removal of trees by Rosemont will comply with applicable laws 

and regulations.

The USFS should address the costs of 

providing fire support to the site and 

the cost of increased wild land fires to 

the taxpayers in local fire districts or 

the state of Arizona or the US 

government.

The discussion of the cost of fire suppression associated with mining activities 

has been revised in the FEIS.

G-50 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to move forward, 

because of impacts to forest health and 

increasing fire risk

It is important to understand the Forest Service role in terms of decision space 

and legal sideboards regarding the Rosemont Copper Project. The Forest Service 

legal authority regarding mining proposals is limited. The Forest Service is 

required to assess and disclose potential social and environmental impacts in an 

EIS and can require reasonable modifications to mine plans of operation and 

mitigation measures. However, there are statutory and constitutional limits to its 

discretion. The Forest Service may reject an unreasonable Mine Plan of 

Operation but cannot categorically prohibit mining or deny reasonable and legal 

mineral operations under the mining laws. A number of analyses were revised, 

and additional mitigation and monitoring measures identified. The Forest is 

required to disclose environmental impacts and benefits in the NEPA document 

and consider those in the final decision. Impacts and benefits of the proposed 

project have been analyzed using the best information available, and the results 

disclosed in the FEIS.

The Coronado National Forest should 

evaluate the effects of recreation 

reduction on wildfire risk.

The Fuels and Fire Section has been updated in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. Updates 

include more detailed identification of fire prevention and fuel loading that would 

occur on the project area including fire water tanks and basic fire training to all 

employees. Combined with reduced recreation, reduced fuel loads, increased

water sources for fighting fires, and employee fire prevention training, the risk of 

fire would decrease as a result of the project being implemented.

The Coronado National Forest should 

provide more information on fuel 

modification work, preventive 

measures, or restrictions to reduce fire 

risk and minimize or mitigate impacts 

to property owners.

Since the publication of the DEIS, the Fuels and Fire section of Chapter 3 in the 

FEIS has been updated to include additional fuels and fire management details 

such as employment of fire suppression training and fire water storage tanks. 

Water sources available for fighting fires are anticipated to increase over existing 

conditions as a result of mining operations as well as a decrease in fuel loads in 

the project area. Impacts to vegetation as a result of groundwater draw down are 

detailed in the Biological Resources and Seeps, Springs, and Riparian sections of 

Chapter 3 in the FEIS.

Noise

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

revise the EIS to provide a more robust 

analysis of noise impacts to humans, 

facilities and structures, livestock, and 

wildlife over a wider analysis area, and 

discuss appropriate mitigation 

measures to reduce those impacts.

As described in Chapter 1 of the EIS, although the Forest Service may reasonably 

regulate mining activities to protect surface resources, there are statutory and 

constitutional limits to its discretion. The Forest Service may reject an 

unreasonable Mine Plan of Operation but cannot categorically prohibit mining 

or deny reasonable and legal mineral operations under the mining laws. 

As described in Chapter 2, blasting would only occur during daytime hours 

between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., typically no more than once per day. The noise 

contours of the blasting are provided in the Noise section in Chapter 3. No 

residential receptors are expected to experience noise levels above standard noise 

thresholds as a result of blasting. Airborne and ground vibrations resulting from 

blasting were studied and are not expected to exceed regulatory standards at the 

closest modeled residential receptor. Noise from increase of traffic on SR 83 was 

analyzed and disclosed in the Noise section in Chapter 3. Approximately 320 

parcels of private land along SR 83 between the mine site and I-10 are located 

within the traffic related noise contours. Property value impacts due to traffic and 

proximity to the mine have been updated since the publication of the DEIS. The 

updated analysis is provided in the Socioeconomic Resources section of Chapter 

3 in the Final EIS.

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project G-51
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The USFS should address impacts to 

private and historic structures from 

noise and vibration - particular from 

blasting. Methods of mitigation and 

restoration should be discussed.

The EIS states that a noise study by Tetra Tech projected that construction 

activities should not be noticeable at distances more than 1.5 miles away. 

Airborne vibrations may be capable of rattling loose objects or windows at 0.5 

mile from the blast site but fall off rapidly 5 miles away from the site. Based on 

modeled ground vibrations, Tetra Tech concluded that the vibrations would “be 

well below the threshold for any kind of cosmetic building damage and would 

generally be below the threshold of human perception at almost all residential 

locations.” NRHP-eligible historic properties within the security fence are within 

the 1.5-mile radius and adverse effects will have been mitigated prior to 

construction of the mine. No historic structures on lands other than those owned 

by Rosemont are located within this radius

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to move forward, 

because of noise impacts to residents

As described in Chapter 1 of the EIS, although the Forest Service may reasonably 

regulate mining activities to protect surface resources, there are statutory and 

constitutional limits to its discretion. The Forest Service may reject an 

unreasonable Mine Plan of Operation but cannot categorically prohibit mining or 

deny reasonable and legal mineral operations under the mining laws. As 

described in Chapter 2, blasting would only occur during daytime hours between 

9 a.m. and 4 p.m., typically no more than once per day. The noise contours of the 

blasting are provided in the Noise section in Chapter 3. No residential receptors 

are expected to experience noise levels above standard noise thresholds as a 

result of blasting. Airborne and ground vibrations resulting from blasting were 

studied and are not expected to exceed regulatory standards at the closest 

modeled residential receptor. Noise from increase of traffic on SR 83 was 

analyzed and disclosed in the Noise section in Chapter 3. Approximately 320 

parcels of private land along SR 83 between the mine site and I-10 are located 

within the traffic related noise contours. Property value impacts due to traffic and 

proximity to the mine have been updated since the publication of the DEIS. The 

updated analysis is provided in the Socioeconomic Resources section of Chapter 

3 in the Final EIS.

G-52 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Transportation and Access

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to move forward, 

because of increases in road 

deterioration, maintenance costs, traffic 

volume, commuting times and public 

safety concerns, as well as impacts to 

the “scenic road” designation of State 

Route 83.

The Coronado National Forest should 

allow the Rosemont Copper Company 

project to move forward, because 

impacts to traffic volume will be 

minimal, truck traffic will drive

safely, and road maintenance will 

improve road condition and be funded.

In response to public comments on the DEIS, the Transportation section of 

Chapter 3 has been updated with additional analysis and details on mitigation 

measures. In the FEIS, transportation impacts are now labeled as an individual 

Issue Statement rather than being listed under Public Health and Safety and other 

Issue Statements. This change is reflected in Chapter 1 and the revised 

Transportation section of Chapter 3 in the FEIS. New traffic analysis was 

completed as a result of updated anticipated delivery truck and commuter trip 

numbers. Traffic conflicts and accident incidents has been updated per the 

revised traffic analysis. The Bounds of Analysis has been expanded to include 

routes between SR83 and the Port of Tucson, as well as potential routes from the 

mine site to ports of entry on the Arizona/Mexico border. Updates to mitigation 

measures have also been made, including the removal of carpooling as a 

mitigation measure, new agreements between Rosemont Copper and ADOT 

regarding pavement resurfacing and general road repair, and school bus pullouts 

details from an agreement between Rosemont Copper and school districts. Other 

sections of Chapter 3 have also been updated to clarify anticipated traffic 

impacts, including the removal of sulfuric acid deliveries to the mine site for the 

Preferred Alternative as a result of the removal of the heap leach and SX/EW 

facilities. These clarifications are included in the traffic analysis and also 

analyzed in the Public Health and Safety and Hazardous Materials sections of 

Chapter 3 in the FEIS. It is important to note that the mine site has been 

determined to not impact SR 83's scenic roadway designation as per the visual 

analysis and ADOT's scenic roadway criteria. Emergency response services are 

funded by local governments, and Rosemont Copper would contribute to local 

government tax revenue that pays for these services. The Forest Service is 

required to assess and disclose potential social and environmental impacts in an 

EIS and can require reasonable modifications to mine plans of operation and 

mitigation measures. The Forest is required to disclose environmental impacts 

and benefits in the NEPA document and consider those in the final decision. 

However, as mentioned, although the Forest Service may reasonably regulate 

mining activities to protect surface resources, there are statutory and 

constitutional limits to its discretion. The Forest Service may reject an 

unreasonable Mine Plan of Operation but cannot categorically prohibit mining or 

deny reasonable and legal mineral operations under the mining laws. Impacts and 

benefits of the proposed project have been analyzed using the best information

available, and the results disclosed in the FEIS.

The USFS should clarify carpooling 

numbers, assumptions, and 

enforcement options.

Since the publication of the EIS, carpooling has been removed as a mitigation 

measure. The Transportation Section in Chapter 3 of the FEIS has been updated 

with traffic analysis numbers without carpooling mitigation, as well as updated 

truck and commuter trip counts.

The Coronado National Forest should 

require the completion of a motorized 

travel plan prior to approval of the 

project and allow public input, as well 

as identify enforcement measures if the 

plan is not adhered to by the company.

Travel management on the Coronado under the Travel Management Rule is being 

addressed on a District-by-District basis. Travel management planning for the 

Nogales District is currently taking place, with a decision projected for the fall of 

2013. Further information on this effort is available on the Coronado National 

Forest website or by contacting the Nogales Ranger District.

The Coronado National Forest should 

evaluate alternative transportation 

routes or transportation methods.

Since the publication of the DEIS, the analysis in the transportation section has 

been updated to reflect new information and an expanded analysis area. The new 

information includes updated traffic counts, updated traffic analysis, and recently 

approved mitigation measures for road maintenance. The analysis area has been 

expanded to include routes that mine product shipments could take to either the 

Port of Tucson, or ports of entry on the Arizona/Mexico border. Since the 

publication of the DEIS, ADOT has confirmed that expanding State Route 83 is 

not a foreseeable action.

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project G-53
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

provide additional analysis of 

mitigation measures for transportation 

impacts, including information on 

implementation, funding, and 

enforcement.

Since the publication of the DEIS, the analysis of transportation impacts has been 

revised and are reported in the Transportation section of Chapter 3 in the FEIS. 

Mitigation updates include the removal of carpooling as a mitigation measure, 

new information on bus pullouts, roadway resurfacing and general improvements, 

and funding agreements between Rosemont Copper and ADOT for mitigation 

measures. Rosemont Copper worked with ADOT to determine the locations and 

the extent of the mitigation measures. It is important to note that widening SR83 

is not a foreseeable future action since it was not carried forward as a potential 

project in ADOT's transportation plan. Emergency response agencies are funded 

by local governments that collect taxes. Rosemont copper would contribute to the 

tax revenues of local governments.

The Coronado National Forest should 

revise the transportation analysis to 

include a wider analysis area, and 

incorporate updated baseline data, 

including a more accurate highway 

classification for State Route 83 and a 

re-evaluation of peak and nonpeak 

data, to remodel traffic and provide a 

full disclosure of transportation costs 

and impacts, including the effect of 

impacts to volume and level of service, 

road condition, potential for fatalities 

and accidents, and impacts to scenic 

designation.

In response to comments on the DEIS, the Transportation section of Chapter 3 

has been updated to include expanded analysis and additional details on 

mitigation measures. For clarity, transportation impacts are now labeled as an 

individual Issue Statement rather than being listed under Public Health and Safety 

and other Issue Statements. This change is reflected in Chapter 1 and the 

Transportation section of Chapter 3 in the FEIS. Traffic analysis was updated to 

reflect anticipated delivery truck and commuter trip numbers. Traffic conflicts 

and accident incidents has been updated per a revised traffic analysis. 

The Bounds of Analysis has been expanded to include routes between SR83 and 

the Port of Tucson, as well as potential routes from the mine site to ports of entry 

on the Arizona/Mexico border. Updates to mitigation measures have also been 

made, including the removal of carpooling as a mitigation measure, agreements 

between Rosemont Copper and ADOT regarding pavement resurfacing and 

general road repair, and school bus pullouts details from an agreement between 

Rosemont Copper and ADOT. Other sections of Chapter 3 have also been 

updated to reflect changes in anticipated traffic impacts, including the removal of 

sulfuric acid deliveries to the mine site for the Preferred Alternative as a result of 

the removal of the heap leach and SX/EW facilities. These changes are included 

in the traffic analysis and also analyzed in the Public Health and Safety and 

Hazardous Materials sections of Chapter 3 in the FEIS. It is important to note that 

the mine site has been determined to not impact SR 83's scenic roadway 

designation as per the visual analysis and ADOT's scenic roadway criteria. 

Emergency response services are funded by local governments, and Rosemont 

Copper would contribute to local government tax revenue that pays for these 

services. Roadway maintenance on highways is funded partially through the state 

motor fuel tax. Rosemont Copper would contribute to the motor fuel tax revenue 

through increase use of fuel.

The Coronado National Forest should 

include analysis of connected 

transportation projects in the EIS or in 

a supplemental version of it.

The Transportation section of Chapter 3 in the FEIS has been revised to include 

new information regarding traffic routes (expanded bounds of analysis), traffic 

impact analysis, and mitigation measures to minimize transportation impacts. 

Because widening of SR83 was not included in ADOT's 40-year transportation 

enhancement plan (decision made since the DEIS was published), widening of 

SR83 cannot be considered a reasonably foreseeable future action. Impacts from 

the SR83/primary access road intersection improvement are analyzed within the 

bounds of analysis for each applicable resource (i.e. cultural resources, biological 

resources).

The Coronado National Forest should 

address impacts from existing and 

increased train traffic on vehicular 

traffic.

The Transportation section in Chapter 3 of the FEIS has been updated with 

additional information regarding anticipated increase in train freight.

G-54 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Health and Safety

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

revise the EIS to include additional 

analysis on impacts to human health 

and safety from the mine’s 

pollutants—including analysis of 

combined impacts from exposure to 

toxic chemicals through air and 

water—and appropriate mitigation 

measures to reduce these risks before 

approving the project.

The mission of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is to protect 

human health and the environment. EPA's purpose is to ensure that: (1) all 

Americans are protected from significant risks to human health and the 

environment where they live, learn and work; (2) national efforts to reduce 

environmental risk are based on the best available scientific information; 

(3) federal laws protecting human health and the environment are enforced fairly 

and effectively; (4) environmental protection is an integral consideration in U.S. 

policies concerning natural resources, human health, economic growth, energy, 

transportation, agriculture, industry, and international trade, and these factors are 

similarly considered in establishing environmental policy; (5) all parts of society 

-- communities, individuals, businesses, and state, local and tribal governments --

have access to accurate information sufficient to effectively participate in 

managing human health and environmental risks; (6) environmental protection 

contributes to making our communities and ecosystems diverse, sustainable and 

economically productive; and (7) the United States plays a leadership role in 

working with other nations to protect the global environment. To accomplish this 

mission, the EPA develops and enforces regulations. When Congress writes an 

environmental law, the EPA implements it by writing regulations. Often, EPA 

sets national standards that states and tribes enforce through their own 

regulations. If they fail to meet the national standards, EPA can help them. 

The EPA also enforces these regulations, and helps companies understand the 

requirements. The Rosemont Copper Project addresses public health issues by 

analyzing and disclosing how the project would comply with EPA regulations 

and standards, including those developed by state and local entities like Arizona 

DEQ and Pima County. NEPA requires that potential impacts to the environment 

be analyzed using the best-available science. Further, the goal of the NEPA 

analysis is to present reasonable expected impacts; NEPA does not require 

analysis of worst-case scenarios. With respect to the release of potential 

contaminants to soils, surface water, groundwater and air, the CNF has utilized a 

number of expert scientists to ensure that the best-available science was used to 

develop all air quality, geochemical, groundwater, and surface water modeling 

tools, and the NEPA analysis presented in the EIS relied on the use of and results 

from these modeling tools. However, it is also recognized that releases have 

happened in the past at other mines and could happen in the future at any mine, 

including the proposed mine. To address this concern, the Forest Service has 

(1) identified the specific monitoring that will be in place to detect any change in 

the environment not envisioned by the NEPA analysis; (2) identified the process 

that will take place if these changes are detected according to the appropriate 

permit, and (3) identified the details of the reclamation bonding that is meant to 

ensure necessary steps can be taken if the mine is unwilling or unable to take 

them. Refer to Chapter 3 of the FEIS for details of revised analyses concerning 

public health.

The Coronado National Forest should 

analyze the costs to the public and 

local government from increased 

healthcare.

As noted, the DEIS indicated the proposed Rosemont project would exceed 

federal air quality standards for some pollutants. Since the DEIS was issued, a 

number of additional mitigation measures, including more efficient engines, 

pollution control equipment and further particulate control. Furthermore, 

revisions were made to the air dispersion modeling protocols and submitted to the 

Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 for concurrence. Based on the 

reductions resulting from the addition of these mitigation measures, and the 

revisions to the emission inventory and modeling protocols, the air dispersion 

modeling analysis was revised. The revised analysis indicates the preferred 

alternative would meet all federal air quality standards, which were developed to 

protect public health. These primary standards provide public health protection, 

including protecting the health of "sensitive" populations such as asthmatics, 

children, and the elderly.

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project G-55
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

consider the costs from increased 

emergency services and mitigation for 

impacts to emergency service resulting 

from the increase in accidents related 

to mining traffic on State Route 82.

The discussion of additional emergency services needs to cope with increased 

accidents on State Route 82 has been updated in the FEIS. Please refer to the 

Public Safety section in Chapter 3 of the FEIS for further information.

The Coronado National Forest should 

provide catastrophic and infrastructure 

security planning in the EIS.

The analysis included in the FEIS considers expected impacts to resources that 

are reasonably likely to occur. The analysis of worst-case scenarios is not a 

requirement under NEPA or its implementing regulations. Even so, the FEIS 

takes into account extreme or low-probability events where possible. For 

instance, surface water analysis makes use of appropriate 100-year events or 

probable maximum precipitation events, both of which are foreseeable but which 

have a low probability of occurring (Chapter 3, Surface Water Quantity). 

Similarly, large scale releases of hazardous materials have been assessed to the 

extent possible (Chapter 3, Hazardous Materials; Chapter 3, Public Health and 

Safety); the analysis of such events is meant to provide specifics if possible, but 

note that it is not possible to fully analyze such releases without knowing exactly 

where they might occur. Low probability events like earthquakes and other 

geologic hazards have also been incorporated analyzed in the FEIS (Chapter 3, 

Public Health and Safety). Some catastrophic events are not considered. For 

instance, low probability events are considered primarily if they would have an 

impact on resources analyzed in the FEIS. Impacts to power supply (from 

damage or from lightning strikes) would not be likely to impact resources, but 

would rather result in a temporary shutdown of mining operations.

The Coronado National Forest should 

allow the Rosemont Copper Company 

project to move forward, because it 

will not pose a risk to residents’ health

The Forest Service is following its obligation under federal law and regulation to 

thoroughly analyze and disclose both positive and negative impacts of proposals 

such as the Rosemont Copper Project, and to consider these impacts in a Final 

EIS and in making a decision on whether and how to implement such a project.

The Coronado National Forest should 

allow the Rosemont Copper Company 

project to move forward, because 

Rosemont Copper will provide a safe 

environment for workers

As a Federal agency, the Forest Service must follow federal laws and regulations 

as they currently exist, which includes addressing potential benefits and impacts 

of the proposed project in an EIS. The DEIS described both the benefits of the 

proposal, as well as the impacts. As stated in Chapter 1 of both the DEIS and 

FEIS, although the Forest Service may reasonably regulate mining activities to 

protect surface resources, there are statutory and constitutional limits to its 

discretion. The Forest Service may reject an unreasonable Mine Plan of 

Operation but cannot categorically prohibit mining or deny reasonable and legal 

mineral operations under the mining laws.

The Coronado National Forest should 

provide a quantitative risk assessment 

as part of the EIS.

The Forest Service has reviewed the Public Health and Safety section in light of 

the comments received and revised them as appropriate. The Public Health and 

Safety and Hazardous Materials sections in Chapter 3 of the FEIS have been 

updated to reflect the removal of the heap leach and associated SX/EW facilities 

and the subsequent reduction of risk associated with these facilities, for the 

preferred alternative.

The Coronado National Forest should 

provide a mosquito control plan, 

monitoring, and education as part of 

the project.

Rosemont Copper will comply with all state and county ordinances regarding 

mosquito control that apply to its operations.

G-56 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Cultural Resources

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

provide a more detailed assessment of 

the extent of cultural, historic, and 

anthropological impacts from the 

proposed project.

The FEIS and its supporting documents provide a detailed assessment of a full 

range of cultural resources that would be subject to adverse effects from the 

project. Chapter 3 summarizes the information; the project record contains the 

reports from which these data are drawn. Consultation with the Arizona State 

Historic Preservation Office, tribal governments, and cooperating agencies has 

been completed and a Memorandum of Agreement signed as required by federal 

law and regulation, which stipulates the measures to be taken to mitigate adverse 

effects on these resources.

The Coronado National Forest should 

address potential loss of important 

natural resources, such as saguaro 

cactus, to the Tohono O'odham Nation 

and other tribes.

The Cultural Resources section of the FEIS has been updated to better disclose 

impacts to culturally significant plants and other traditional resources. Additional 

mitigation measures that will, to some degree, mitigate impacts have been 

incorporated since the DEIS was released. Please refer to the Cultural Resources 

section in Chapter 3 of the FEIS for further information.

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper EIS to 

move forward because of impacts to 

cultural, historical and archaeological 

sites; areas sacred to Native American 

tribes; Traditional Cultural Properties; 

and plants and other materials 

important to Native American and 

Hispanic communities.

The Coronado National Forest should 

revise the cultural resources analysis in 

the EIS to incorporate additional 

ethnographic and ethnohistoric 

research, historic, prehistoric, 

protohistoric information and sites, and 

regional settlement history, as well as 

other traditional uses of the land and 

culturally significant sites that are not 

recorded under the National Historic 

Preservation Act.

There is no doubt that implementation of the proposed mine project would have 

short-term, long-term, and permanent impacts to the cultural resources and 

traditional uses mentioned. However, it is important to understand the decision 

space that the Forest Service has for this project. As stated in the DEIS and FEIS 

under mining laws although the Forest Service may reasonably regulate mining 

activities to protect surface resources, there are statutory and constitutional limits 

to its discretion. The Forest Service may reject an unreasonable Mine Plan of 

Operation but cannot categorically prohibit mining or deny reasonable and legal 

mineral operations under the mining laws. The Forest Service has consulted with 

culturally affiliated federally-recognized tribes and developed a Historic 

Properties Treatment Plan (HPTP) outlining the mitigation and monitoring 

measures that will address the adverse impacts, and developed a Plan of Action 

that will be implemented if any human remains are disturbed by the project. 

These documents are incorporated into a Memorandum of Agreement signed by 

the proponent, the Forest, the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer, and 

others. The Forest continues to facilitate wherever possible access to traditionally 

important resources and sacred sites on Forest lands.

The EIS should include additional 

mitigation and preservation measures 

for cultural sites, and describe how 

applicable federal laws would be met.

The Forest Service consulted with tribes, cooperating agencies, and the Arizona 

State Historic Preservation Office and developed a Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA), a Historic Properties Treatment Plan (HPTP) that describes the measures 

to monitor and mitigate adverse effects on National Register of Historic Places 

eligible historic properties, and a Plan of Action (POA) specifying the treatment 

of human remains discovered during intentional excavations or inadvertent 

discoveries, as required by the Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act. These documents also stipulate the procedures to be followed in 

the event that previously undetected cultural resources or human remains are 

uncovered during ground-disturbing activities during operation and reclamation 

of the project area. The MOA is appendix in the FEIS.

The EIS should further describe the 

importance of Santa Ritas as a 

Traditional Cultural Property.

The Forest Service has determined that the Santa Rita Mountains are eligible for 

listing in the National Register of Historic Places as a traditional cultural property 

of the O'odham, Apache, Puebloan, and Pascua Yaqui peoples. Direct and 

indirect impacts relating to traditional cultural properties within the project were 

considered and effects analyzed. Additional information regarding the status of 

the area as a Traditional Cultural Property has been added to the Cultural 

Resources section in Chapter 3 of the FEIS.

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project G-57
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

discuss impacts to burial sites and 

disturbance of human remains.

Disturbance to burial sites and human remains was identified as an issue and as a 

factor in alternative comparison in the DEIS (Chapter 3, pages 661, 662, 670, 

679, 683, 684, 695). Through consultation with the culturally affiliated federally 

recognized tribes, the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, cooperating 

agencies, and the proponent, the Forest Service developed a Historic Preservation 

Treatment Plan (HPTP) and a Plan of Action (POA). The HPTP specifies 

measures to be taken to mitigate adverse effects on NRHP-eligible historic 

properties, including those properties that contain burial sites. The POA specifies 

the treatment of all human remains encountered during mitigation and project 

implementation, including those discovered through intentional or inadvertent 

discovery, as required by law.

The Coronado National Forest should 

adequately analyze impacts to the 

Santa Rita Experimental Range and 

Las Cienegas in the EIS as a potential 

national historic property or research 

station.

The National Register eligibility of the Santa Rita Experimental Range as a 

cultural landscape has been considered in consultation with the Arizona State 

Historic Preservation Officer. The determination of eligibility is discussed in 

Chapter 3 of the FEIS. The Las Cienegas National Conservation Area is outside 

of the Area of Potential Effect for cultural resources.

The Coronado National Forest should 

address concerns that cultural surveys 

did not sufficiently capture all cultural 

resources in the project area, in 

part due to lack of surveyor knowledge 

or improper field methods.

All field surveys were conducted by qualified archaeologists using survey 

techniques meeting the standards set by the Arizona State Historic Preservation 

Office and the Arizona State Museum. Details regarding survey methodologies 

are summarized in the FEIS, with further detail located in the Project Record. 

Non-archaeological cultural resources of importance to the tribes were identified 

during on-site tours, tribal consultation, and ethnographic research.

The Coronado National Forest should 

postpone a permitting decision until

National Register status issues for the 

Ce:wi Duag Traditional Cultural Place 

are resolved.

The Ce:wi Duag Traditional Cultural Place has been determined eligible for 

listing in the NRHP by the Forest Service. Please refer to the Cultural Resources 

section in Chapter 3 of the FEIS for further detail.

The Coronado National Forest should 

expand the cultural area of potential 

effects.

The area of potential effects for cultural resources has been determined in 

consultation with Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer. The area of 

potential effects includes connected actions and areas of direct and indirect 

effects.

The Coronado National Forest should 

redo cultural surveys for transmission 

lines and water lines.

Archaeological surveys of all proposed alternatives for power and water lines 

were conducted by qualified archaeologists using survey techniques meeting the 

standards set by the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office and the Arizona 

State Museum. Details regarding survey methodologies are summarized in the 

FEIS, with further detail located in the Project Record. Initial reports of the 

results of archaeological survey of the utilities corridors were revised to address 

the concerns received from public comment, the Arizona Corporation 

Commission, tribes, cooperating agencies, and the Arizona State Historic 

Preservation Office.

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

include an analysis of human wellbeing and quality of life in the EIS.

The discussion of potential impacts to quality of life has been updated in the FEIS. 

Please refer to the Socioeconomic section in Chapter 3 of the FEIS for further 

detail.

G-58 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

allow the Rosemont Copper Company 

project to move forward, because the 

project will generate jobs and 

economic revenue

The Forest Service is obligated by federal law and regulations to thoroughly 

analyze and disclose both positive and negative impacts of proposals such as the 

Rosemont Copper Project, and to consider these impacts in a Final EIS and in 

making a decision on whether and how to implement such a project. In response to 

public and agency comments, the Forest Service has revised the social and 

economic analysis to better reflect both the positive and negative impacts of the 

proposed mine. The results are described in the Socioeconomics and 

Environmental Justice section of Chapter 3 in the FEIS. It should also be noted 

that under federal mining laws, the Forest Service cannot categorically prohibit 

mining or deny a reasonable and legal mineral operation if that operation can be 

implemented in compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

The Coronado National Forest should 

allow the Rosemont Copper Company 

project to move forward, because it 

will improve local quality of life and 

community social aspects, and keep 

future generations here

The social and economic benefits as well as impacts have been addressed. Based 

on comments on the DEIS, additional analysis of the impacts of the proposed 

project on social and economic values was conducted. The results are disclosed in 

the Socioeconomic section of Chapter 3 of the FEIS.

The Coronado National Forest should 

re-analyze and disclose the complete 

economic impacts of the project, 

including the total number of jobs 

created by the project, types of jobs 

provided, source of suppliers, 

economic and income estimates, and 

general job or other revenue losses in 

other industries.

The Socioeconomic analysis has been updated in the FEIS with the latest available 

information, and to disclose a more complete picture of social and economic 

benefits and impacts that addresses recreation, tourism, and natural amenities. 

Refer to the Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice section of Chapter 3 in the 

FEIS for details.

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to move forward, 

because of adverse impacts to quality 

of life

The Socioeconomic impact analysis has been updated since release of the DEIS, 

and quality of life issue addressed in more detail. It acknowledges that all action 

alternatives would impact the quality of life or local residents and communities. 

However, although the Forest Service may reasonably regulate mining activities to 

protect surface resources, there are statutory and constitutional limits to its 

discretion. The Forest Service may reject an unreasonable Mine Plan of Operation 

but cannot categorically prohibit mining or deny reasonable and legal mineral 

operations under the mining laws. The Forest Service is required to assess and 

disclose potential social and environmental impacts in an EIS, including impacts 

to quality of life, and can require reasonable modifications to mine plans of 

operation and mitigation measures.

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to move forward, 

because of adverse impacts to 

property values in the area

The economic analysis has been updated, in part to address potential property 

value and subsequent tax impacts attributable to the proposed mine. Refer to the 

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice section of Chapter 3 in the FEIS for 

details.

The Coronado National Forest should 

analyze project impacts to property 

values and who will compensate 

owners for losses.

The economic analysis has been updated, in part to address potential property 

value impacts attributable to the proposed mine. Refer to the Socioeconomics and 

Environmental Justice section of Chapter 3 in the FEIS for details. According to 

federal regulations (36 CFR 228.8), the Forest Service is directed to mitigate 

impacts to National Forest surface resources. Loss of private property value is not 

a Forest Service surface resource, and there is no basis in law that would allow the 

Forest Service to require Rosemont to mitigate for reduced property values.

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project G-59
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

analyze environmental justice impacts 

to the Tohono O’odham Nation and 

minority and low income residents.

In its consideration of environmental justice, the Forest Service considered 

Executive Order 12898, which requires that all federal agencies incorporate 

environmental justice into their mission; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

definition of a community with potential environmental justice populations; and 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development definition of a low-income 

population. Based on the guidance cited above and in the EIS, the Forest Service 

determined that the communities that meet the criteria for identification as 

environmental justice community because of minority populations, low income, or 

living below poverty level include the Hispanic population of Santa Cruz County, 

the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, and the Tohono O’odham Nation. The analysis of 

environmental justice issues associated with these communities is described in the 

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice section of Chapter 3 in both the DEIS 

and FEIS.

The Coronado National Forest should 

expand the project area to incorporate 

Tucson and other local community 

population growth in close proximity 

to the project.

The Rosemont project area refers to those areas that would be excluded from 

public access to accommodate mine activities and would include the open pit, 

waste rock storage area, tailings area, plant site and ancillary facilities, fenced area 

around the mine, and mine primary and secondary access roads. The bounds of 

analysis, or analysis area is determined for and generally differs for each resource 

being analyzed. The analysis area for socioeconomic impacts was reviewed and 

determined to be appropriate for addressing the social and economic impacts of 

the project. The socioeconomic analysis was also updated to address a number of 

concerns raised in public and agency comments. Please refer to the Socioeconomic 

and Environmental Justice section in Chapter 3 of the FEIS for further 

information.

The Coronado National Forest should 

evaluate the social, economic, and 

environmental impacts to agriculture 

and ranches in the area.

The social, economic, and environmental impacts to agriculture and ranches in the 

area are addressed in the FEIS. Please refer to the Socioeconomic section in 

Chapter 3 of the FEIS for further detail.

The Coronado National Forest should 

evaluate the economic and job 

ramifications from the boom-bust 

nature of mining and fluctuating 

copper prices.

M3 Engineering and Technology Corporation prepared a feasibility study for the 

Rosemont Copper Project in August 2001 and updates in January 2009 and August 

2012. The study, which was prepared according to industry standards, addressed 

the economic feasibility of the Rosemont Copper Project. Weighted average metal 

process for copper, molybdenum, silver and gold were used, which assumes some 

level of metal price fluctuation. Bonding is the mechanism used to assure that 

funds are available to reclaim the mine site should the proponent fail to carry out 

their obligations. The discussion on financial assurance and bonding has been 

updated for the FEIS. The Forest Service reclamation bonding process is derived 

from 36 CFR Part 228 regulations that set forth the rules and procedures through 

which use of the surface of National Forest System lands are governed in 

connection with operations authorized by the United States mining laws. Mine 

operators required to file a plan of operations shall, when required by the 

authorized officer, furnish a bond conditioned upon compliance with § 228.8(g), 

prior to approval of a plan of operations (emphasis added). For the Rosemont 

project, the plan of operation will not be approved until after the Record of 

Decision is signed to ensure that the plan of operation contains all requirements 

from the FEIS and ROD. Therefore final bond calculations will not be made until 

after the FEIS is published. 36 CFR Part 228 states: “In determining the amount of 

the bond, consideration will be given to the estimated cost of stabilizing, 

rehabilitating, and reclaiming the area of operations.” The Forest Service Training 

Guide for Reclamation Bond Estimation and Administration (USDA Forest 

Service, April 2004) states, “Bonds should address all FS costs that would be 

incurred in taking over operations because of Operator default. Bonds should be 

estimated based on contracting the required reclamation work according to the 

Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR).”

G-60 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to go forward, 

because it will be harmful to the 

economy and/or the job market and 

there are existing unfilled mine jobs.

The socioeconomics analysis has been updated, incorporating several independent 

studies to disclose a more complete picture of the potential benefits and impacts of 

the proposed mine, including potential impacts on employment, quality of life, 

tourism, natural amenities, amenity-based migration, etc. Refer to the 

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice section of Chapter 3 in the FEIS for 

details.

The Coronado National Forest should 

perform a new, unbiased 

socioeconomic study of the project 

over a wider analysis area, disclose 

both short-term and long-term 

economic impacts, and provide all 

data inputs, model assumptions, 

calibrations, etc. in the EIS.

The Socioeconomic analysis in the FEIS has been updated, incorporating several 

independent studies to provide a more detailed and accurate estimation of the 

economic impacts of the Rosemont Copper Project on Pima, Santa Cruz, and 

Cochise counties. The updated analysis includes estimates of potential impacts to 

tourism, natural amenities, amenity migration, the astronomy industry, property 

values, etc. This analysis is contained in the Socioeconomic and Environmental 

Justice section of Chapter 3 in the FEIS.

The Coronado National Forest should 

allow the Rosemont Copper Company 

project to move forward, because it 

will not adversely impact tourism and 

could draw tourists to the mine site.

The Forest Service is following its obligation under federal law and regulation to 

thoroughly analyze and disclose both positive and negative impacts of proposals 

such as the Rosemont Copper Project, and to consider these impacts in a Final EIS 

and in making a decision on whether and how to implement such a project. Based 

on public and agency comments on the DEIS, the Forest Service has updated its 

analysis of potential impacts to tourism and recreation based economies in the 

area. Please refer to the Socioeconomic section of Chapter 3 in the FEIS for 

further detail.

The Coronado National Forest should 

provide sufficient information to 

demonstrate that fair treatment and 

meaningful involvement has been met 

for environmental justice 

communities.

The Forest has reviewed the overall efforts involved in addressing environmental 

justice, and found that the analysis complies with federal direction. The 

description of outreach efforts and analysis findings have been updated in the 

FEIS. Please refer to the Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice section of 

Chapter 3 in the FEIS for further detail.

The Coronado National Forest should 

re-analyze information regarding the 

number of jobs that could not be filled 

by local residents, how many workers 

would relocate or commute to the 

area, and what the demands on local 

housing and total employee spending 

would be in the EIS.

The Forest Service economic impact analysis estimates the total effects of a 

program or project and the distribution of those effects among all sectors of the 

economy. Additional economic analysis has been conducted to more accurately 

assess the economic impacts during the building and operation of the Rosemont 

project. Updated and additional data has been added to the Socioeconomics 

section of Chapter 3 of the FEIS, including potential impacts to employment, 

population, and housing within the three-county area of analysis. However, it is 

outside of the realm of the FEIS to impose worker hiring restrictions.

The Coronado National Forest should 

reevaluate estimates of property tax 

revenue paid by Rosemont Copper 

Company.

The FEIS has been updated to include the results of several independent studies 

that examined the proposed mine's potential economic impacts, including potential 

impacts on tax revenues. This updated analysis can be found in the 

Socioeconomics section of Chapter 3 in the FEIS.

The Coronado National Forest 

should make their decision regarding 

the Rosemont Copper project by using 

cost-benefit models.

The Forest Service selected economic analysis tools and models that it determined 

to be appropriate to address the issues that are described in Chapter 1 of the EIS, 

and which were developed in response to public scoping.

The Coronado National Forest should 

allow the Rosemont Copper EIS 

project to move forward because the 

project will contribute resources to the 

national and global copper market that 

ultimately supports the ever 

expanding need for technology.

The FEIS addresses the views expressed in these comments in a variety of ways. 

Jobs and economic benefits associated with the Rosemont project are addressed in 

the Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice section of Chapter 3. Impacts to 

local economies and the astronomy industry are discussed in that same section. 

While the copper produced from the Rosemont project will contribute to the world 

copper market, there is no guarantee that this particular copper will be processed 

and consumed in the United States. Like many natural resources, copper is a 

global market.

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project G-61
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to go forward, 

because demand for copper is low and 

unpredictable

The Forest Service has an obligation to respond to and process permit applications 

such as mine plans of operation. The Rosemont Copper MPO was received in 

2007. As stated in the DEIS and FEIS, the Coronado is addressing this project at 

this time in order to comply with its statutory obligation to respond to Rosemont 

Copper’s preliminary MPO in a timely manner. The current demand for copper is 

not a factor that directly influences the Forest Service's obligation to process 

Rosemont's permit in a timely manner, according to applicable laws, regulations 

and policy.

The Coronado National Forest should 

clarify how an endowment trust will 

be used to mitigate specific impacts.

The endowment trust referenced is a voluntary effort brought forward by 

Rosemont Copper. As stated in the EIS, the Trust would be established as an 

independent charitable trust, with a Board of Trustees and Advisory Council, the 

projects that the Trust would fund would be decided at a later date, upon the 

board’s specific decisions.

Other Comments and Non-Substantive Comments

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

support the Barrel Alternative, because 

it addresses project impacts in an 

acceptable way

The Barrel Alternative has been identified as the Forest Service preferred 

alternative in both the DEIS and FEIS. The decision about what alternative and 

other requirements to ultimately implement is described in the Record of 

Decision. The Record of Decision contains a description of the rationale for 

selecting the alternative and other requirements.

The Coronado National Forest should 

evaluate the project’s impacts on future 

generations.

The Forest Service evaluated the project's impacts according to NEPA and its 

implementing regulations.

Notice of litigation. This decision is subject to appeal by the proponent pursuant to 36 CFR 215 or 36 

CFR 214 (not both). Appeals must meet the content requirements of 36 CFR 214. 

They may appeal the calculation of the bond amount under 36 CFR 214. Other 

parties who comment during the Scoping or DEIS comment periods may appeal 

the decision pursuant to 36 Code of Federal Regulations 218. An attorney is not 

necessary to file an objection. All citizens have the right to litigate this decision 

according to appropriate laws and regulations.

The Coronado National Forest should 

approve the Rosemont Copper Project. 

Rosemont plans to comply with all 

laws, regulations and policies.

As noted in Chapter 1 of the DEIS and FEIS, although the Forest Service may 

reasonably regulate mining activities to protect surface resources, there are 

statutory and constitutional limits to its discretion. The Forest Service may reject 

an unreasonable Mine Plan of Operation but cannot categorically prohibit mining 

or deny reasonable and legal mineral operations under the mining laws. Based 

upon comments received on the DEIS, additional mitigation measures were 

added and analysis for several resource areas was updated for the FEIS. 

The Coronado National Forest should 

approve the Rosemont Copper Project 

because Rosemont has a legal right to 

mine their claims.

As a Federal agency, the Forest Service must follow federal laws and regulations 

as they currently exist, which includes addressing potential impacts of the 

proposed project in an EIS. The DEIS described both the benefits of the proposal, 

as well as the impacts. Based upon comments on the DEIS, a number of 

mitigation measures were added, and analysis was updated. A review of the FEIS 

will indicate that the Rosemont Preferred Alternative will have detrimental 

impacts, some of them significant, as well as beneficial effects. As stated in 

Chapter 1 of both the DEIS and FEIS, although the Forest Service may 

reasonably regulate mining activities to protect surface resources, there are 

statutory and constitutional limits to its discretion. The Forest Service may reject 

an unreasonable Mine Plan of Operation but cannot categorically prohibit mining 

or deny reasonable and legal mineral operations under the mining laws.

G-62 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

Public Concern Statement Response

The Coronado National Forest should 

approve the Rosemont Copper Project. 

Rosemont plans to use the best 

technology available to reduce 

potential environmental impacts, and 

the proposed mine would be 

environmentally responsible.

While the Rosemont Copper Project incorporates many technological features 

that help to avoid or reduce potential impacts, it is a large and complex proposal 

that will have both beneficial and detrimental effects. The DEIS described both 

the benefits of the proposal, as well as the impacts. Based upon comments on the 

DEIS, a number of mitigation measures were added, and analysis updated. A 

review of the FEIS will indicate that the Rosemont Preferred Alternative will 

have detrimental impacts, some of them significant, as well as beneficial effects. 

As stated in Chapter 1 of both the DEIS and FEIS, although the Forest Service 

may reasonably regulate mining activities to protect surface resources, there are 

statutory and constitutional limits to its discretion. The Forest Service may reject 

an unreasonable Mine Plan of Operation but cannot categorically prohibit mining 

or deny reasonable and legal mineral operations under the mining laws. 

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to move forward.

As stated in Chapter 1 of both the DEIS and FEIS, although the Forest Service 

may reasonably regulate mining activities to protect surface resources, there are 

statutory and constitutional limits to its discretion. The Forest Service may reject 

an unreasonable Mine Plan of Operation but cannot categorically prohibit mining 

or deny reasonable and legal mineral operations under the mining laws. 

The Coronado National Forest should 

allow the Rosemont Copper Company 

project to move forward.

The Forest Service is required by federal law and regulations to analyze the social 

and environmental impacts of the proposed project, and to consider those impacts 

when making a decision regarding which alternative to implement. As stated in 

Chapter 1 of both the DEIS and FEIS, although the Forest Service may 

reasonably regulate mining activities to protect surface resources, there are 

statutory and constitutional limits to its discretion. The Forest Service may reject 

an unreasonable Mine Plan of Operation but cannot categorically prohibit mining 

or deny reasonable and legal mineral operations under the mining laws. 

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to move forward, due 

to lack of trust over Rosemont 

intentions, lack of follow-through, 

company or employee performance 

history, and foreign company status

As stated in Chapter 1 of both the DEIS and FEIS, although the Forest Service 

may reasonably regulate mining activities to protect surface resources, there are 

statutory and constitutional limits to its discretion. The Forest Service may reject 

an unreasonable Mine Plan of Operation but cannot categorically prohibit mining 

or deny reasonable and legal mineral operations under the mining laws. Augusta 

Resources owns the mineral rights to the ore body they are proposing to mine. 

The Forest Service cannot deny access to their ore body because they are 

registered in Canada, or because they may sell their products outside of the 

United States. Rosemont or any successor company will be required by law to 

follow all requirements set forth in the FEIS and Record of Decision, and to 

comply with applicable federal laws and regulations. The Coronado will ensure 

that monitoring and reporting occurs in order to ensure that operations are 

occurring according the FEIS and Record of Decision. Bonding is the mechanism 

that is used to assure that reclamation activities will be carried out.

The Coronado National Forest should 

not allow the Rosemont Copper 

Company project to go forward, due to 

the inherent worth of nature

The Coronado National Forest should 

allow the Rosemont Copper Company 

project to move forward, because the 

needs of humans should take priority 

over those of non-human species

The Forest Service is following its obligation under federal law and regulation to 

thoroughly analyze and disclose both positive and negative impacts of proposals 

such as the Rosemont Copper Project, and to consider these impacts in a Final 

EIS and in making a decision on whether and how to implement such a project.

Responses to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Comments

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) provided written comments on the Rosemont 

Copper Project Draft EIS on February 21, 2012. These comments were not incorporated into the 

comment database as they were received after close of the public comment period, and therefore may 

or may not be reflected by the Public Concern Statements and responses summarized in Appendix G 

of the FEIS. However, the USEPA comments were fully evaluated and were critical to guiding further 

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project G-63
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

analysis to be incorporated into the FEIS. The purpose of this section is to summarize the main 

concerns raised by the USEPA, and how these concerns were addressed in the FEIS.

USEPA Comment/Concern Strategy Implemented/Analysis Conducted

Air Quality – Compliance with the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) is not demonstrated by the air 

quality modeling, and the lead NAAQS 

was not explicitly analyzed.

All air quality modeling has been revised since the DEIS, implementing 

modeling procedures determined appropriate by the Forest in conjunction with 

cooperators, and incorporating all proposed mitigation. Lead is now explicitly 

analyzed against the NAAQS. 

Based on the revised modeling air quality standards (NAAQS) are met for the: 

Barrel (Preferred) Alternative. All NAAQS are also met for Saguaro National 

Park East (the nearest Class I area). NAAQS for particulate matter are not met 

for the Proposed Action, Phased Tailings Alternative, Barrel Trail Alternative 

and Scholefield-McCleary Alternative.

Also note that ADEQ has now issued the air permit, which makes the modeled 

mitigation mandatory.

Air Quality – The reliance in the DEIS on 

the Pima County air permit for 

implementation of mitigation is not 

appropriate, because the Pima County air 

permit was denied.

All mitigation measures are now explicitly stated in the FEIS, without reliance 

on or reference to the air permit 

Air Quality – The EIS does not consider 

the ramifications of a NAAQS violation

This is a moot point. It is the Coronado’s position that the proposed project 

cannot be authorized if the alternative selected in the ROD has a demonstrated 

likelihood (by modeling) of violating air quality standards ( NAAQS) at the 

perimeter fenceline, as this outcome would not be protective of public health 

outside of the mine site.

Air – Disagreement with modeling 

choices

The Coronado conducted various conference calls with cooperating agencies, 

as well as the USEPA, in order to discuss disagreements with modeling 

choices. Revised modeling protocols were developed to address the issues of 

concern, and Rosemont Copper was required to rerun all air quality modeling. 

This modeling was completed in December 2012/January 2013.

Air – Visibility impacts to Class 1 areas Visibility and deposition impacts were also remodeled for all Class 1 areas (six 

total). Both visibility and deposition analysis thresholds are exceeded at some 

Class 1 areas. The Coronado has coordinated with the National Park Service to 

develop an approach for disclosing these impacts, as well as to discuss whether 

any additional mitigation could be applied.

Geochemistry – Production of seepage 

from the waste rock is underrepresented

The Coronado requested that Rosemont model additional seepage scenarios for 

the waste rock facility, as suggested by USEPA, including several worst-case 

scenarios. The additional modeling was completed, and still indicates that it is 

unlikely for precipitation to generate seepage from the waste rock facility.

More importantly, the Coronado requested from Rosemont Copper a complete 

redesign of the stormwater management for the Barrel Alternative, with the 

intention of limiting any post-closure ponding of water on either the waste rock 

or tailings facilities. All post-closure stormwater is now shed from the 

reclaimed facilities and allowed to flow downstream, further reducing the 

potential for infiltration and generation of seepage.

Geochemistry – Reliance on synthetic 

precipitation leaching procedure (SPLP) 

testing; questions on kinetic testing; 

suggestion for additional tests

The Coronado has worked with their contracted geochemical experts to review 

the USEPA concerns regarding the geochemistry tests conducted, as well as 

requesting additional information from Rosemont Copper (Hoag, Bird, and 

Day 2012; Hoag, Sieber, and Rasmussen 2012b; Kline et al. 2012).

The Coronado believes the analysis in the EIS of geochemistry and, in 

particular, the risk of acid rock drainage is adequate and defensible. However, 

in response to continued uncertainty regarding the interpretation of test results 

and geochemical modeling, the Coronado has developed and is requiring 

several new monitoring measures that would focus on water quality impacts 

beyond those regulated under the APP, as well as a more thorough operational 

characterization of waste rock and tailings, and the potential response of waste 

rock/tailings in the long-term.

G-64 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

USEPA Comment/Concern Strategy Implemented/Analysis Conducted

Geochemistry – Underestimation of 

arsenic and selenium specifically

The Coronado has worked with their contracted geochemical experts to review 

the USEPA concerns regarding these two constituents (Hoag, Bird, and Day 

2012; Hoag, Sieber, and Rasmussen 2012; Kline et al. 2012), and believes the 

analysis in the EIS is adequate and defensible. 

It should be noted that some uncertainty remains in the analysis regarding 

selenium, and the potential for stormwater runoff to have elevated selenium 

concentrations. As noted above, it is due in part to this uncertainty that the 

Coronado is working with Rosemont Copper to develop more thorough 

operational characterization of waste rock and tailings.

Geochemistry – Lack of other mines as 

analogs

The Coronado has worked with their contracted geochemical experts to 

research other mines in the Southwest, and compare the geologic and 

geochemical characteristics observed at those mines to the Rosemont deposit 

(Hoag, Sieber, and Rasmussen 2012). This comparison is now included in the 

EIS. 

Geochemistry – Effectiveness of heap 

leach encapsulation

The Coronado has worked with their contracted geochemical experts to 

investigate this issue (Hoag, Bird, and Day 2012; Hoag, Sieber, and 

Rasmussen 2012; Kline et al. 2012). The description in the DEIS was found to 

be insufficient, and this has now been changed in the FEIS.

Also note that in July 2012, Rosemont Copper removed oxide ore processing, 

including the heap leach pad, from the Barrel (Preferred) Alternative.

Geochemistry – Encapsulation could 

potentially hurt the heap liner

The Coronado has worked with their contracted geochemical experts to 

investigate this issue, and found that the liner would still be well within 

specification (Hoag, Bird, and Day 2012; Hoag, Sieber, and Rasmussen 2012; 

Kline et al. 2012). This has been better described in the EIS.

Again, note the removal of the heap leach from the Barrel (Preferred) 

Alternative.

Geochemistry – Long term treatment of 

heap leach draindown

The Coronado requested from Rosemont more detailed description of exactly 

how draindown from the heap leach would be monitored and treated after 

closure of the heap. This detail is now included in the EIS.

Again, note the removal of the heap leach from the Barrel (Preferred) 

Alternative.

Groundwater – APP details should be 

included

The APP has now been issued, and details regarding the monitoring and 

BADCT associated with the APP have been incorporated into the EIS.

Groundwater – Proposed arsenic standard 

is exceeded

The Coronado considered the issue of the difference in arsenic standards 

between the USEPA proposed standard (10 ug/L) and the existing State of 

Arizona standard (50 ug/L). The discrepancy is discussed in the EIS. 

However, the Coronado position is that the legal standard applicable in the 

State of Arizona (specifically the Arizona numeric aquifer water quality 

standards) is the appropriate threshold for this analysis.

Groundwater – Financial Assurance 

Bonding lacking

Further detail has been incorporated into the EIS regarding the bonding 

process. However, the Coronado intends to follow Forest Service policy, which 

is to defer bond calculations until after the ROD has been approved. Note that 

preliminary bonding estimates calculated by Rosemont would be available to 

the public in the project record and is also an attachment to the Preliminary 

Reclamation Plan, which is currently available on the Rosemont project 

website.

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project G-65
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

USEPA Comment/Concern Strategy Implemented/Analysis Conducted

Aquatic Resources – Changes to 

Davidson Canyon not adequately 

assessed

Geomorphological analysis was not included in the DEIS. This analysis has 

now been conducted and is included in the EIS.

The analysis of impacts to Outstanding Arizona Waters in both Davidson 

Canyon and Cienega Creek was fairly minimal in the DEIS. The Coronado has 

revised this analysis, which includes comparison against not only regulatory 

standards but also the original nomination criteria for the Outstanding Arizona 

Water segments. A new section (Seeps, Springs, & Riparian Areas) has been 

incorporated into the EIS to consolidate impacts to riparian areas, which were 

previously spread out in the DEIS.

As noted previously, one critical piece to reducing impacts to both Barrel and 

Davidson Canyons was the redesign of post-closure stormwater management 

to allow more water to flow downstream. Under the Barrel (Preferred) 

Alternative, this redesign was able to reduce the post-closure loss of runoff in 

Barrel Canyon from 34% to 17%.

Significant mitigation has now been proposed regarding riparian impacts in 

Davidson Canyon and elsewhere, which includes properties acquired within 

Davidson Canyon itself which would be protected through restrictive

covenants, and securing water rights that are applicable to Davidson Canyon.

Significant monitoring has now been proposed regarding riparian impacts in 

Davidson Canyon, including water quality sampling, geomorphological 

monitoring, and water level measurements in alluvial and bedrock aquifers.

Aquatic Resources – Changes to Cienega 

Creek not adequately assessed

Much of the analysis to aquatic systems ultimately is based on the groundwater 

modeling. The Coronado undertook an extensive review of the groundwater 

modeling in order to better determine the accuracy and uncertainties associated 

with the models. This work has all been incorporated into the EIS, as well as 

an explicit discussion of areas of uncertainty.

To respond to these uncertainties, monitoring components have been proposed 

and are included in Appendix B.

As noted, a new section (Seeps, Springs, & Riparian Areas) has been 

incorporated into the EIS. This includes an extensive analysis of potential 

impacts to streamflow and riparian vegetation along Cienega Creek. 

While the impacts described in the EIS have a high level of uncertainty, 

Rosemont Copper has brought forward significant mitigation related to 

Cienega Creek, which includes purchase and transfer of water rights, 

retirement of pumping near Cienega Creek, and establishment of new riparian 

areas along Cienega Creek. These mitigation measures are described in 

Appendix B.

Aquatic Resources – Functional 

assessment of springs and seeps not 

provided

As noted, the Coronado revised the riparian analysis in the EIS. The term 

“functional assessment” is a technical term, and the Coronado determined that 

level of analysis was not appropriate. However, the Coronado has embraced 

the concept that riparian resources need to be analyzed with respect to how 

potential impacts might affect their function (i.e., diversity, density, 

reproduction, vigor). This is now included in the Seeps, Springs, & Riparian 

Areas section of the EIS.

Groundwater – Background 

concentrations of VOCs and 

Radionuclides not established

The Coronado has worked with their contracted geochemical experts to 

investigate this issue, particularly the presence of VOC “hits” in background 

concentrations (Hoag, Bird, and Day 2012; Hoag, Sieber, and Rasmussen 

2012; Kline et al. 2012). This analysis is now described in the EIS.

Groundwater – Irretrievable commitment 

of groundwater resources

The commitment of groundwater resources is a consequence of the mine and is 

fully disclosed as required. Since publication of the October 2011 DEIS, 

additional mitigation has been brought forward intended to offset some of the 

impacts related to drawdown of the aquifer, including potential impacts to 

springs and along Cienega Creek.

G-66 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

USEPA Comment/Concern Strategy Implemented/Analysis Conducted

Groundwater – Funding of USGS Gage This monitoring measure remains in Appendix B. The Coronado determined 

that it cannot require this measure under its regulatory authority, and as such it 

remains as a voluntary measure proposed by Rosemont Copper. The time 

frame for this monitoring has changed to reflect 5 years or closure of the 

aquifer protection permit, whichever is later.

Tribal resources – Severe and 

unmitigated impacts

Section 106 consultation has made substantial progress since publication of the 

October 2011 DEIS. The EIS is intended to include as attachments the 

Memorandum of Agreement, which contains the agreements regarding 

mitigation of impacts to cultural resources, and may also include the Historic 

Properties Treatment Plan that describes the actual implementation procedures. 

Note that the HPTP is rather large and contains sensitive materials, and may 

end up as a reference in the record, rather than a direct attachment to the EIS.

Note that other mitigation measures have also been developed that relate to the 

access of tribal members to conservation lands and Rosemont-owned lands, as 

well as the reestablishment of plant species important to the tribes.

However, it is recognized and disclosed in the FEIS that the mine would 

disturb numerous archaeological sites, as well as areas of cultural importance 

to tribes, and that these impacts cannot be fully offset or mitigated. 

Reclamation and Closure Plan Missing Rosemont Copper has completed several versions of the Reclamation and 

Closure Plan, the most recent for the Barrel (Preferred) Alternative in July 

2012. Details of the reclamation and revegetation techniques from this plan are 

fully described in the EIS, and the plan itself is available in the public record 

and the Rosemont project website. However, the Coronado does not intend to 

attach the document to the EIS. Note that a final reclamation and closure plan 

would be prepared after an alternative is approved for implementation in the 

ROD, and before the project can be implemented on NFS lands. The final 

reclamation and closure plan would incorporate all stipulations, mitigation and 

monitoring required by the ROD.

Central Drain – need for permitting Note that the Central Drain is only a component of the Proposed Action 

alternative. It has been dropped from all other alternatives, including the Barrel 

(Preferred) Alternative. If the Proposed Action alternative were selected, the 

aquifer protection permit obtained by Rosemont Copper would need to be 

modified to include the Central Drain.

Biological Resources – Need for 

consultation

Section 7 Consultation has been completed. All terms and conditions, and 

reasonably prudent measures from the BO are incorporated into Appendix B, 

and their effectiveness addressed in chapter 3 Biological Resources section. 

The Biological Opinion is included as an appendix to the FEIS.

Traffic and Public Safety Traffic impacts, including haul trips and improvements to SR 83, have been 

updated for the EIS. Among other changes, the traffic analysis now includes 

other routes that might be used for hauling copper products from the mine site, 

not just SR 83 to Interstate 10.

Responses to U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers Comments

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) provided written comments on the Rosemont Copper 

Project Draft EIS on April 4, 2012. These comments were not incorporated into the comment 

database as they were received after close of the public comment period, and therefore may or may 

not be reflected by the Public Concern Statements and responses summarized in Appendix G of the 

FEIS. However, the USACE comments were fully evaluated and were critical to guiding further 

analysis to be incorporated into the FEIS. The purpose of this section is to summarize the main 

concerns raised by the USACE, and how these concerns were addressed in the FEIS.

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project G-67
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

USACE Comment/Concern Strategy Implemented/Analysis Conducted

There were four comments concerning 

general organization of the document, 

regarding page numbers, table of contents, 

volumes, and citations

These organization comments were considered. Document organization of the 

FEIS is in compliance with Forest Service policy and guidance and meeting 

the requirements of NEPA and CEQ regulations. The resulting organization of 

the FEIS may still be of concern to the USACE.

The USACE objected to the Purpose and 

Need Statement. The document states the 

Purpose and Need is for the FS to respond 

to Rosemont’s Mining Plan of Operations. 

The DEIS does not provide a Purpose and 

Need Statement for the proposed project.

The Forest Service respectfully disagrees. The requirement for a discussion of 

"purpose and need" in an environmental impact statement under the CEQ 

regulations is to "briefly specify the underlying purpose and need to which the 

agency is responding in proposing the alternatives including the proposed 

action." 40 C.F.R. §1502.13. In the case of the Rosemont Copper Project, the 

Forest Service is responding to a preliminary mine plan of operation that was 

submitted by Rosemont Copper. The lead agency -- the federal agency 

proposing to take an action -- has the authority for and responsibility to define 

the "purpose and need" for purposes of NEPA analysis. This is consistent with 

the lead agency's responsibilities throughout the NEPA process for the "scope, 

objectivity, and content of the entire statement or of any other responsibility" 

under NEPA. 42 U.S.C. §4332(D); see also, 40 C.F.R. §§1501.5, 1506.5. The 

Forest Service has reviewed the Purpose of and Need for Action statement and 

determined that is appropriate for this project.

There is a general underestimation of 

impacts with the use of the words “may” 

and “potential”. For example, a maximum 

of 6,461 acres of habitat will be 

completely lost or converted; however, the 

document states this is not expected to 

“have far reaching consequences for 

population viability”.

The Forest Service has reviewed and modified the use of these terms in the 

FEIS. However, it should be noted that whether the use of these terms is 

appropriate is a case by case call. In the example given in the comment, 

whether complete loss of 6,461 acres of habitat would or would not have far 

reaching consequences for population viability depends on a number of 

factors, including what species is being addressed, range of that species, 

habitat conditions within the range, etc. The point is that one cannot state that 

use of terms such as “may” or “potential” are or are not appropriate. It is 

dependent on the specific resource being discussed and a number of variables 

that must be considered.

There is a general lack of true 

compensatory mitigation for losses of 

aquatic and riparian habitat and other 

impacts. There is a discussion of 

minimization and, in some cases, 

avoidance but mitigation in terms of 

compensation is lacking.

Details of compensatory mitigation are now available and have been included 

in the FEIS. Mitigation is compiled into one place (Appendix B), and each 

mitigation measure includes details as to the responsible party, effectiveness 

criteria, and specific implementation and reporting actions. The effectiveness 

of mitigation measures is addressed in the appropriate resource section in 

chapter 3 of the FEIS.

Financial Assurances for post-closure 

reclamation and activities for this 

proposed project are not specifically 

defined in terms of amount or length 

required.

The discussion on financial assurance and bonding has been revised for the 

FEIS. The Forest Service reclamation and closure bonding process is derived 

from 36 CFR Part 228 regulations that set forth the rules and procedures 

through which use of the surface of National Forest System lands are 

governed in connection with operations authorized by the United States 

mining laws. Mine operators required to file a plan of operations shall, when 

required by the authorized officer, furnish a bond conditioned upon 

compliance with 

§ 228.8(g), prior to approval of a plan of operations (emphasis added). For the 

Rosemont project, the plan of operation will not be approved until after the 

Record of Decision is signed to ensure that the plan of operation contains all 

requirements from the FEIS and ROD. Therefore final bond calculations will 

not be made until after the FEIS is published and the Forest Service ROD 

approved. 36 CFR Part 228 states: “In determining the amount of the bond, 

consideration will be given to the estimated cost of stabilizing, rehabilitating, 

and reclaiming the area of operations.” The Forest Service Training Guide for 

Reclamation Bond Estimation and Administration (USDA Forest Service, 

April 2004) states, “Bonds should address all FS costs that would be incurred 

in taking over operations because of Operator default. Bonds should be 

estimated based on contracting the required reclamation work according to the 

Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR).”

G-68 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

USACE Comment/Concern Strategy Implemented/Analysis Conducted

The alignment of off-site utilities has 

changed and will no longer impact public 

lands under the management of the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

Therefore, USACE believes the sections 

pertaining to the BLM as an agency with 

regulatory responsibility should now be 

deleted.

The MPO was officially withdrawn from BLM consideration; this has now 

been reflected in the FEIS.

The DEIS addresses a 20-year life of 

mine; however, it does not address 

contingencies should the life of the mine 

be extended. The document should 

describe the application and approval 

process for the applicant should the need 

arise to continue mining after 20 years?

The FEIS has clarified the mine life, and describes the process undertaken if 

mine operations fall outside the bounds of the approved MPO and NEPA 

decision.

Page 77 mitigation measures for 

Alternatives 3-6 are not applicable to the 

proposed alternative as referenced in the 

DEIS statement “To provide a meaningful 

comparison of the proposed action and 

other alternatives, these additional 

mitigation measures do not apply to the 

proposed action.” We believe it should be 

specifically addressed as to why those 

mitigation measures do not apply to the 

proposed alternative.

The alternatives listed as Common to All Action Alternatives were part of the 

preliminary MPO or otherwise agreed to by the proponent. They applied to the 

Proposed Action and all action alternatives. The mitigation measures that are 

specific to Alternatives 3-6 were not part of the preliminary MPO, and 

therefore would not apply to the Proposed Action. It should be noted that the 

mitigation and monitoring plan presented in Appendix B of the FEIS contains 

more mitigation and monitoring measures, and more detail that was contained 

in the DEIS. 

Since publication of the DEIS, Rosemont 

has made statements regarding future 

development of their other mineral 

resources adjacent to this ore body. 

The Corps believes this should be 

addressed within the context of reasonably 

foreseeable actions.

Properties adjacent to the Rosemont mine site with mineral resources owned 

by Augusta Resources include, Broad Top Butte, Copper World and Peach 

Elgin. Broad Top Butte – Amamax estimated mineral resources in 1979. 

It would take an additional 5 years and $12 million to determine economic 

feasibility. Given the lack of information, the feasibility of extraction cannot 

be determined until full exploration and a feasibility analysis are completed 

(404(b)(1), p. 44). Copper World – No estimates of mineral resources exists. 

It would take an additional 3.5 years and $7 million to determine economic 

feasibility. Given the lack of information, the feasibility of extraction cannot 

be determined until full exploration and a feasibility analysis are completed 

(404(b)(1), p. 45). Peach Elgin – Anaconda estimated mineral resources in 

1964. Estimates to determine economic feasibility are not known. Given the 

lack of information, the feasibility of extraction cannot be determined until 

full exploration and a feasibility analysis are completed (404(b)(1), p. 45-46). 

While further exploration and eventual mining could occur at some unknown 

time in the future, a detailed analysis of this possibility cannot be undertaken 

at this time because economic feasibility has not been determined; and there is 

no basic information such as type of mining, estimates of tailings or waste, 

etc. There is not enough information to even begin to analyze effects. 

Any proposal to develop these properties would involve exploration programs, 

which would be subject to permitting and NEPA processes. Any future mine 

development would also be subject to permitting and NEPA.

On page 78, delete the statement 

“According to Pima County, this would 

not be consistent with local planning 

guidelines of the Sonoran Desert 

Conservation Plan” which is made in 

reference to the Section 404 proposed 

mitigation. Whether the Section 404 

mitigation is consistent with the SDCP is 

not pertinent.

This language has been changed.

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project G-69
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

USACE Comment/Concern Strategy Implemented/Analysis Conducted

A specific and detailed reclamation and 

closure plan should be provided for public 

review and comment. This should include 

a detailed revegetation plan as well as a 

detailed cost estimate for reclamation.

A revised preliminary reclamation and closure plan has been received from 

Rosemont and has been referenced in the FEIS. The final reclamation and 

closure plan would be produced as part of the final MPO.

Detailed information regarding the 

required financial assurances for postclosure reclamation and associated 

activities should be provided for public 

review and comment and should not be 

developed at a later date.

Please see earlier response related to calculating the amount of financial 

assurance, or bonding. While the amount of the final bond cannot be 

calculated until after the Record of Decision is signed, the discussion of the 

bonding process has been revised for the FEIS.

A specific and detailed monitoring plan 

for post-closure reclamation and activities 

should be provided for public review and 

comment.

A more detailed monitoring plan has been included in the FEIS (Appendix B). 

There is no long-term management or 

contingency plan in regard to reclamation 

of the site upon closure. A long-term 

management and contingency plan should 

be developed for postclosure reclamation 

and associated activities and should be 

provided for public review and comment.

It is important to understand that the Rosemont project requires concurrent 

reclamation. When the mine closes, reclamation activities will have been 

occurring for nearly 20 years. The final reclamation and closure plan would 

include any necessary contingencies for long-term management of the site.

There is no quantitative analysis of longterm stability of dry-stacked tailings and 

waste rock facilities to address long-term 

safety issues. Because dry-stacked tailings 

is an unproven method in the arid 

southwest, it is important to determine 

how this facility might withstand 

environmental changes over time. Please 

provide studies with the appropriate soil 

stability analysis for these types of 

facilities.

Assessment of stability of the tailings and waste rock facilities is included in 

the Soils section of the FEIS.

A solid sediment transport analysis is 

lacking. This analysis should consider 

sediment entrainment, transport, and 

deposition as a function of flowing water. 

The DEIS provides only rough estimates 

of downstream impacts to sediment yield 

and total suspended solids. A more 

appropriate model, such as HEC-6 or 

HEC-RAS should be used to address 

sediment transport. Sediment transport is 

an important function of waters of the 

U.S.; for example, it replenishes sediment 

depleted areas. A model, such as those 

recommended, provides detailed 

information on how sediment transport 

functions may change over time with the 

proposed project in place.

A soil erosion assessment in consideration 

of the impact of mining should be 

provided. While the DEIS does recognize 

the need to estimate erosion from not only 

existing conditions but also post-mining 

conditions, it does not provide a proper 

method of assessment such as the Revised 

Numerous public comments were received concerning specific aspects of both 

stormwater and sediment modeling and analysis. The Forest has implemented 

an expert peer-review process in order to assure that the selected models and 

model assumptions are appropriate (SWCA Environmental Consultants 

2013l). This includes the models used, modeling assumptions used, and design 

storms used to size stormwater facilities. The peer-review process found the 

sediment and stormwater models acceptable and reasonable for use, and that 

appropriate design storms were used. Additional surface water sensitivity 

analyses have been conducted on behalf of the Forest in order to understand 

the consequences of using different key assumptions in the models.

The Forest has included a qualitative analysis of geomorphological changes in 

the FEIS. In addition, to address any uncertainty in the analysis, monitoring of 

geomorphological changes in Barrel Canyon has been included into 

Appendix B.

G-70 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

USACE Comment/Concern Strategy Implemented/Analysis Conducted

Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) on 

mined lands. This is important as soil 

erosion may increase during life of mine 

and post closure activities and may 

indirectly impact the functions and 

services of waters of the U.S.

A larger design storm is needed based on 

climate change models which predict the 

Southwestern U.S. will receive larger and 

more intense storms. The 100-year, 24-

hour is not adequate.

Flow through drains are undersized and 

should be designed for the 72-hour 

probable maximum precipitation (PMP) 

(which is larger than the 100-year, 24-

hour). FEMA guidance requires the use of 

“critical storm” which is the highest 

discharge at a point of interest. 

Undersized drains will result in upstream 

impacts and potential flooding.

Results of HEC-HMS modeling done by 

Tetra Tech is significantly different than 

that done by Pima County Regional Flood 

Control District (PCRFCD) using HECHMS modeling. For instance, the peak 

discharge rate calculated by PCRFCD at a 

specific compliance point indicates a peak 

discharge of 13,865 cfs while the Tetra 

Tech models indicate the peak discharge 

at the same compliance point is 5,359 

cfs....a significant difference. It appears 

that the methodology used to run the 

models was incorrect and not compliant 

with PCRFCD technical memos. Incorrect 

calculation of peak discharges results in 

the underdesign of facilities which must 

be permitted by the Corps under Section 

404.

Peak flows and runoff volumes should be 

recalculated to be consistent with 

PCRFCD by using the appropriate 

methodology. Additional studies should 

be conducted to thoroughly evaluate the 

impacts to Davidson Canyon Wash 

including impacts to riparian and aquatic 

habitats; hydrology studies using “critical” 

storms and approved hydrologic 

methodology in order to design structures 

for the peak flow rate; and hydrology 

studies which consider longer-term storm 

durations in relation to volume.

Additional information, in the form of a 

detailed stormwater plan for mine 

operations and post-closure is required to 

ensure that noncontact stormwater does, in 

fact, remain noncontact and is separated in 

perpetuity from contact stormwater.

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project G-71
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

USACE Comment/Concern Strategy Implemented/Analysis Conducted

A post-closure soil management plan is 

lacking for reclamation. Such a plan 

should identify not only post-closure soil 

borrow areas for surface and slope work 

but also for revegetation. Will there be 

adequate soils (amount and composition) 

for such activities? What methods will be 

used for erosion repair of slopes of mine 

facilities?

Details of soil salvage, including storage locations and needed volumes is 

included in the Soils section of the FEIS. This section incorporates details 

from the most recent reclamation and closure plan that were not available for 

the DEIS (CDM Smith 2012a).

There is a general lack of information 

regarding impacts to groundwater quantity 

and to private wells.

The Forest recognizes the concern of private well owners, and will more 

thoroughly describe the difficulties in performing an analysis of impacts on 

individual wells. However, the Forest does not believe that the data exist or 

can reasonably be obtained to conduct these analyses properly. Numerous 

public comments suggest otherwise, noting the available well inventory 

databases that could be used. However, a review of these databases indicates 

they do not contain information that is up to date, nor do they contain the full 

information that is needed to perform a reasonable impact assessment. For 

instance, the available inventories describe well depth in most cases, but often 

lack information on screened intervals and pump settings. In addition, water 

levels in these databases are available for most wells only at the time of 

drilling, which may be decades old. Current data shows that ground water 

levels have fluctuated over time. 

Groundwater modeling is inadequate. 

The DEIS addresses the limitations of the 

groundwater methodologies used 

(i.e. faults and fractures are treated as 

porous media over regional scales) and 

states that the models “...are less 

acceptable for analyzing fate and transport 

over shorter distances...”. Technical 

studies should be performed to address 

impacts to groundwater quantity and 

should include local, site specific 

modeling including well data for baseline 

and long-term impacts. There is no 

consideration of other locally used 

groundwater models such as those used by 

Pima County and the Bureau of Land 

Management.

The Forest has conducted an extensive peer review process with appropriate 

independent experts to ensure that the groundwater models used are 

appropriate, defensible, and reasonably predict impacts. Substantial work has 

been conducted since the DEIS in response to public and agency comments; 

details of this work is included in the “Changes since the DEIS” part of the 

Groundwater Quantity section of the FEIS. All known available models have

been assessed and used in the analysis, including the model conducted by 

Pima County. A model conducted by BLM is not known to exist. Further 

analysis by outside expert modelers has been undertaken to address specific 

concerns raised by the Forest, cooperating agencies, and during the public 

comments. 

In any case, the approach taken in the FEIS of relying on a range of models, 

utilizing a variety of modeling techniques, in order to assess impacts is 

considered a robust and objective analysis method that addresses the current 

state of the science and acknowledges the uncertainty of modeling ground 

water systems.

There is no estimate provided of existing 

groundwater pumping and no economic 

evaluation of the decrease in home values 

that could result from possible impacts to 

private wells. Given Rosemont’s failed 

attempts to offer well incentives to the 

affected public, we believe it is important 

to address the economic impacts 

associated with mine activities.

A socioeconomic study has been contracted by the Forest to better look at 

economic effects to nearby homeowners. The well owners program may 

provide partial but not complete mitigation. In any case, an assessment of 

socioeconomic effects from well impacts has been included in the FEIS.

G-72 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

USACE Comment/Concern Strategy Implemented/Analysis Conducted

The impacts to Davidson Canyon Wash 

are not quantified. There is no detailed 

discussion on relative changes of water 

quantity and sediment; change in flow 

duration, seasonality, and frequency of 

yields; or stream stability. Davidson 

Canyon Wash downstream of the 

proposed project area has been designated 

as an Outstanding Water of Arizona. The 

Barrel Canyon watershed wherein the 

proposed mine lies, is a direct tributary to 

Davidson Canyon Wash. This wash 

provides a substantial input of water into 

the Santa Cruz River watershed. Possible 

direct and indirect impacts to this 

watershed would also impact the larger 

watershed which is the major and primary

watershed through Pima County.

The analysis of effects to Davidson Canyon has been revised, with the intent 

to address not only the requirements pertinent to an Outstanding Arizona 

Water, but also possible geomorphic changes. The Forest worked with 

Rosemont to redesign the stormwater management for the Preferred 

Alternative, with the intent of getting more water downstream. The analysis of 

impacts to riparian areas has also been expanded in the FEIS, and revised in 

conjunction with comments from cooperating agencies.

There is significant concern over the 

operation of the flow-through and finger 

drains in terms of sediment deposition 

within them and maintenance to ensure 

they operate correctly and do not further 

impact water quality. Specific 

maintenance and monitoring plans should 

be developed in order to prevent and 

address sediment deposition. If the drains 

do not operate properly, there is the 

potential for upstream flooding and 

increased turbidity especially during high 

intensity storms.

As part of the stormwater redesign undertaken by the Forest and Rosemont 

Copper, the underdrains were removed from the Preferred Alternative in order 

to avoid issues with long term maintenance and management. The alternatives 

in the FEIS offer a variety of stormwater designs, and each is addressed in the 

impact analysis.

The DEIS does not adequately address 

seepage from mine facilities and the 

potential impacts which would result.

The Forest respectfully disagrees. Seepage from tailings, heap leach, and 

waste rock is adequately analyzed in the EIS. However, public comments have 

resulted in further analyses. A more detailed plan for closure of the heap leach, 

particularly the effects of encapsulation, has been undertaken by Forest 

experts. Expert peer analysis of infiltration and other geochemical modeling 

assumptions has also been undertaken to address public and Forest concerns.

Detailed analysis of species-specific 

impacts is lacking. Species identified as 

occurring within the proposed project area 

should not only be listed but the impacts 

to those species should be individually 

identified. The proposed project will result 

in major disturbance and degradation to 

many acres of currently pristine wildlife 

habitat and, thus, will result in impacts to 

the ecosystem as a whole.

The analysis of biological resources has been updated to address habitat 

relevant to specific species. Please refer to the Biological Resources section in 

chapter 3 of the FEIS, as well as the biological resources mitigation and 

monitoring in Appendix B and the Biological Opinion, which is also attached 

as an appendix to the FEIS.

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project G-73
G. Summary of Response to Comments on the DEIS

USACE Comment/Concern Strategy Implemented/Analysis Conducted

Detailed cause/effect analysis in relation 

to habitat destruction and disturbance, 

reduced subsurface flow, and species is 

lacking. It is important to qualify and 

quantify expected losses due to the 

linkage of changes in species and habitat 

elements. For example, if there is a 

decrease in the water supplied to 

Davidson Canyon Wash, then one would 

expect a change to the riparian habitat in 

terms of composition and densities which 

would also link to changes in the species 

which use the habitat.

In response to public comments, impacts to riparian vegetation has been 

revised, both in terms of mapping and acreage, as well as a functional 

assessment of impacts from potential groundwater drawdown. Analysis of 

wildlife corridors and linkages has also been revised based on new 

information received during public comment.

There are no listed specific measures for 

control of invasive species such as 

Tamarisk and buffelgrass which become 

proliferative in disturbed areas. 

Buffelgrass is a concern in Pima County 

due to increased fire hazard. Invasive 

species could proliferate and impact 

valuable conservation lands downstream 

of the proposed project. A detailed 

invasive species control plan should be 

provided at this stage for public review 

and comment.

An Invasive Species Control Plan is one part of the reclamation and closure 

plan that will be prepared for the final MPO. The preliminary invasive species 

control plan has been referenced in the FEIS; however a more detailed plan 

would be required before the final reclamation and closure plan would be 

approved by the Coronado.

The use of vegetative volume to assess 

potential impacts to habitat is not adequate 

as it does not provide an assessment of 

how the system functions. Better 

condition or functional assessment 

methodology, such as the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s Habitat Evaluation 

Procedures, should be used to measure 

riparian habitat and adequately address 

impacts to it.

In response to public comments, impacts to riparian vegetation have been 

revised, both in terms of mapping and acreage, as well as a functional 

assessment of impacts from potential groundwater drawdown. Analysis of 

wildlife corridors and linkages has also been revised based on new 

information received during public comment.

As a Federal cooperating agency for the 

EIS, the Corps should be provided with 

copies of all Class III Cultural Resource 

Surveys.

The Corps has requested these previously, and it is our understanding that all 

of the Class III Cultural Resource Surveys have been provided. If the Corps is 

aware of any reports that have not been provided, these will be made available 

upon request. 

The Corps should be involved in the 

review of a draft Historic Properties 

Treatment Plan and draft Memorandum of 

Agreement (MOA) with the Arizona State 

Historic Preservation Office to address 

impacts to sites listed or eligible for listing 

in the National Register of Historic 

Places.

The Corps should also be included as a 

signatory on the MOA.

The Corps has been included in the consultation process under Section 106 

and will be signatory to the MOA.

The Corps should be provided with all 

documentation of government-togovernment consultations with the 

appropriate Native American Tribes.

Full details of government-to-government consultations with Tribes were 

provided in the Draft EIS, and are included as appendix in the FEIS.

G-74 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project