Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Acknowledgments
The Pima County Multi-species Conservation Plan had its genesis in the Sonoran
Desert Conservation Plan, a broad-scale, science-based, and community-driven effort
that seeks to achieve a balance between natural resource conservation and
development in Pima County. The Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan rests on the
efforts of a broad cross-section of citizens and scientists who freely gave—and continue
to give—their time, expertise, and passionate support to that award-winning effort.
The extraordinary and sustained efforts of County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry, Dr.
Maeveen Marie Behan, and successive members of the Pima County Board of
Supervisors to implement the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan over the years are
gratefully acknowledged.

Recommended Citation:
Pima County. 2012. 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.

i

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Table of Contents
1

Introduction to the Pima County Multi-Species Conservation
Plan .................................................................................................. 1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4

2

Purpose and Need for the MSCP ..................................................................... 1
MCSP Biological Goal and Objectives ............................................................. 2
Pima County MSCP: Required Elements ......................................................... 3
Alternatives to Incidental Take ......................................................................... 3

Planning Area and Background Information ................................ 6
2.1
2.2

3

Pima County MSCP Planning Area .................................................................. 6
Collection and Synthesis of Data for the SDCP and MSCP ............................. 6
2.2.1 Priority Vulnerable Species ................................................................... 8
2.2.2 The Maeveen Marie Behan Conservation Lands System (CLS) and
the Reserve Design Process ................................................................. 8
2.2.3 Public Participation in the SDCP and MSCP ....................................... 11

Plan Scope and Anticipated Impacts .......................................... 13
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4

3.5
3.6
3.7

3.8
3.9

Permit Area .................................................................................................... 13
Permit Duration .............................................................................................. 15
Covered Species ............................................................................................ 15
Covered Activities for the Pima County MSCP ............................................... 17
3.4.1 Additional Details on Select Covered Activities ................................... 18
3.4.1.1
Development on Private Property ........................................... 18
3.4.1.2
Pima County Activities ............................................................ 19
3.4.1.3
Mosquito Control for Public Health ......................................... 21
3.4.1.4
Ranching Activities ................................................................. 21
3.4.2 Activities Not Covered by the Permit ................................................... 22
Additional Benefits of Implementing the MSCP .............................................. 23
Projected Spatial Footprint of Covered Activities ........................................... 23
Effects of the Pima County MSCP on Covered Species: Habitat Loss .......... 23
3.7.1 Background Information on Calculating Habitat Loss .......................... 23
3.7.2 Take Calculations for the Pima County MSCP .................................... 26
Indirect Effects of Covered Activities .............................................................. 26
Effects of the Pima County MSCP on Critical Habitat .................................... 26
3.9.1 Southwestern willow flycatcher ............................................................ 26
3.9.2 Jaguar ................................................................................................. 27
3.9.3 Mexican spotted owl ............................................................................ 28
3.9.4 Desert pupfish ..................................................................................... 28
3.9.5 Gila chub ............................................................................................. 28
3.9.6 Huachuca water umbel ........................................................................ 29
3.9.7 Chiricahua leopard frog ....................................................................... 29
3.9.8 Acuña cactus ....................................................................................... 29

ii

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

4

Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation and Implementation of
the Conservation Program ........................................................... 30
4.1
4.2

Avoidance and Minimization – SDCP Retrospective ...................................... 30
Avoidance and Minimization – Permit Compliance ........................................ 37
4.2.1 Avoidance and Minimization: Indirect Effects ...................................... 38
4.3 Mitigation Tools .............................................................................................. 38
4.3.1 Land Acquisition in the Conservation Lands System and Outside of
Pima County ........................................................................................ 39
4.3.2 Ranching and the CLS Mitigation Strategy .......................................... 42
4.3.3 Mitigation Equivalency Analysis for Individual Species ........................ 42
4.3.4 Water Rights Acquired on Mitigation Lands ......................................... 44
4.4 Calculating Credit for Mitigation Lands ........................................................... 44
4.4.1 State Trust Ranch Lands Leased by Pima County .............................. 44
4.4.2 Natural Open Space Set-Asides Established to Achieve
Compliance with the CLS .................................................................... 45
4.4.3 Evaluating Changes in Stewardship Level on State Lands ................. 46
4.4.4 Evaluating Changes in Stewardship Level on Mitigation Land Within
Private Development ........................................................................... 46
4.4.5 Establishing Mitigation Credit for Species Enhancements ................... 47
4.5 Implementation of the Mitigation Program ...................................................... 47
4.5.1 Options for Obtaining Mitigation Lands ................................................ 48
4.5.1.1
Fee-simple Acquisition............................................................ 48
4.5.1.2
Conservation Easements on Pima County’s Fee-simple
Lands ...................................................................................... 49
4.5.1.3
Partial Interest: Conservation Easements on Private Ranch
Property .................................................................................. 50
4.5.1.4
Partial Interest: State Trust Grazing Leases ........................... 51
4.5.1.5
Life Estates and Other Devices .............................................. 51
4.5.1.6
Donations of Property Interests .............................................. 51
4.5.1.7
Open-Space Set Asides Established to Achieve
Compliance with the CLS ....................................................... 51
4.5.2 Fees for Receipt of Coverage under Pima County’s Permit ................ 52
4.6 Regulatory Standards and Relationship to Recovery ..................................... 52
4.6.1 Recovery: Mandate vs. Enhancement ................................................. 52
4.6.1.1
Recovery Plans and Goals ..................................................... 53
4.7 Conservation and Recovery of Aquatic and Riparian Species ....................... 53
4.7.1 Species Enhancement Areas .............................................................. 53
4.8 Additional Implementation Elements .............................................................. 55
4.8.1 Migratory Birds and Eagles ................................................................. 55
4.8.2 Unlisted Species .................................................................................. 55
4.8.3 Plants in the MSCP and Permit ........................................................... 55
4.9 Permit Phasing ............................................................................................... 56
4.9.1 Permit Phase I: Years 1-10.................................................................. 56
4.9.2 Permit Phase II: Years 11-20............................................................... 56
4.9.3 Permit Phase III: Years 21-30.............................................................. 56
4.10 Amendments .................................................................................................. 57

iii

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

5

Land and Resource Management ................................................ 58
5.1

5.2
5.3

5.4
5.5

6

Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................... 68
6.1
6.2

6.3

6.4
6.5
6.6

6.7
6.8
6.9

7

Land Management Approaches and Guidelines for Mitigation Lands ............ 58
5.1.1 Invasive Species.................................................................................. 58
5.1.2 Management Guidelines for Riparian Systems.................................... 59
5.1.3 Restoration and Enhancement ............................................................ 59
5.1.3.1
Riparian and Aquatic Restoration ........................................... 60
5.1.3.2
Upland Restoration ................................................................. 60
5.1.4 Public Access, Trails, and Recreation ................................................. 61
5.1.5 Trash and Illegal Dumping ................................................................... 62
5.1.6 Adjacent Management Issues ............................................................. 62
Ranchland Management ................................................................................ 63
Land Protection and Enforcement .................................................................. 66
5.3.1 Park Rules ........................................................................................... 66
5.3.2 Mitigation Lands within Private Development ...................................... 66
Management Plan Development .................................................................... 67
Cooperative Wildlife Management ................................................................. 67

Compliance Monitoring................................................................................... 68
Effectiveness Monitoring ................................................................................ 69
6.2.1 Species Monitoring .............................................................................. 69
6.2.2 Habitat Monitoring ............................................................................... 70
6.2.2.1
Vegetation .............................................................................. 71
6.2.2.2
Water Resources .................................................................... 71
6.2.2.3
Caves, Mines, and Adits ......................................................... 71
6.2.3 Landscape Pattern .............................................................................. 72
6.2.4 Threats ................................................................................................ 72
6.2.5 Climate Monitoring ............................................................................... 72
Program Duration and Phasing ...................................................................... 73
6.3.1 Planning and Implementation Phase I: Permit Years 1-2 .................... 73
6.3.2 Planning and Implementation Phase II: Permit Year 3 ........................ 74
6.3.3 Planning and Implementation Monitoring Phase III: Permit Years 45 .......................................................................................................... 74
Location of Monitoring Activities ..................................................................... 74
Data Management .......................................................................................... 75
6.5.1 Covered Species Information Database .............................................. 75
Adaptive Management ................................................................................... 76
6.6.1 Responsive Management Actions ....................................................... 76
6.6.2 Recurrent Management Actions .......................................................... 77
Adapting Monitoring: Changed Circumstances and New Methods ................ 77
PCEMP Oversight .......................................................................................... 78
Monitoring Partnerships ................................................................................. 78

Changed Circumstances, Unforeseen Circumstances, No
Surprises, and Other Federal Commitments .............................. 79

iv

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

7.1
7.2

Introduction .................................................................................................... 79
Changed Circumstances ................................................................................ 79
7.2.1 Changed Circumstances: Climate Change .......................................... 85
7.2.2 Management response to Changed Circumstances ............................ 86
7.3 Unforeseen Circumstances ............................................................................ 87
7.3.1 Procedure for Determining Occurrence of Unforeseen
Circumstances ..................................................................................... 87
7.3.2 Response to Occurrence of Unforeseen Circumstances: No
Surprises ............................................................................................. 90
7.4 Additional Federal Commitments ................................................................... 90
7.4.1 Limitations on USFWS Funds.............................................................. 90
7.4.2 Section 7 Consultations and Conferences ........................................... 90
7.4.3 Consideration of Pima County MSCP in Section 4 Findings ............... 91
7.4.4 Coordinating Requirements of the National Historic Preservation
Act with the MSCP............................................................................... 91
7.5 New or Proposed Listings of Uncovered Species and Increased
Populations of Listed but Uncovered Species: Permit Amendment ............... 91

8

Funding Mechanisms and Commitments ................................... 93
8.1
8.2

8.3

8.4
8.5

9

Summary of MSCP Costs .............................................................................. 93
8.1.1 Pima County Sheriff’s Department ...................................................... 97
Assured Funding Mechanisms ...................................................................... 97
8.2.1 General Funds ..................................................................................... 97
8.2.2 General Obligation Bonds ................................................................... 98
8.2.3 Flood Control District Tax Levy............................................................ 98
8.2.4 Private Sector Funding for Mitigation and Minimization of Habitat
Loss ..................................................................................................... 98
8.2.5 Development Agreements ................................................................ 100
Potential Funding Mechanisms .................................................................... 100
8.3.1 Future Open-space Bonds ................................................................ 100
8.3.2 Flood Control District Tax .................................................................. 100
8.3.3 Donations, Dedications, and Land Exchanges .................................. 101
8.3.4 Funding Regional Transportation Improvements to Reduce
Fragmentation ................................................................................... 101
8.3.5 Permit Fees ....................................................................................... 101
Development Agreements ............................................................................ 101
Additional Potential Funding Sources........................................................... 102
8.5.1 Other NRPR Sources ........................................................................ 102
8.5.2 State Grants ...................................................................................... 102
8.5.3 Federal Line-item Appropriations....................................................... 102
8.5.4 Section 6 Grants: Federal .................................................................. 102
8.5.5 Other Federal Grants......................................................................... 103

Reporting and Public Participation ........................................... 104
9.1

Reporting...................................................................................................... 104
9.1.1 Annual Reporting ............................................................................... 104

v

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

9.2
9.3

9.4
9.5

10

9.1.1.1
Reporting Habitat Loss ......................................................... 104
9.1.1.2
Reporting Lease Lands that Contribute to Mitigation ............ 104
9.1.1.3
Other Information Included in Annual Reports ...................... 105
9.1.2 Decennial Reporting .......................................................................... 106
9.1.3 Comparison of Annual and Decennial Reports .................................. 106
Audit ............................................................................................................. 107
Responsibilities of Permit Participants ......................................................... 107
9.3.1 Pima County ...................................................................................... 107
9.3.2 Pima County Regional Flood Control District..................................... 107
9.3.3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ........................................................... 108
9.3.4 Private Sector .................................................................................... 108
Public Participation and Oversight ............................................................... 108
9.4.1 Science and Technical Advisory Team (STAT) ................................. 109
Voluntary and Collaborative Partnership Opportunities ................................ 109

Glossary of Terms and Acronyms............................................. 111
10.1 Terms 111
10.2 Acronyms ..................................................................................................... 118

11

Preparers and Contributors ....................................................... 119
11.1 Preparers and Contributors of Current Draft ................................................ 119
11.1.1 Preparers: Pima County Staff ............................................................ 119
11.1.2 Contributors ....................................................................................... 119
11.2 Preparers of Previous Drafts ........................................................................ 119
11.2.1 Preparers: Pima County .................................................................... 119
11.2.2 Preparers: RECON Environmental Inc. ............................................. 120
11.2.3 Contributors of Previous Drafts.......................................................... 120

12

Literature Cited ........................................................................... 123

List of Tables
Table 2.1. Land ownership in Pima County. ................................................................... 6
Table 2.2. Acres of land in each Maeveen Marie Behan Conservation Land System
(CLS) category and non-CLS lands in Pima County, excluding tribal lands. ...... 9
Table 3.1. Species to be covered under Pima County’s Section 10 permit. For
additional information on these species, see Appendix A. ............................... 16
Table 3.2. Projected acres of impacts to the Maeveen Marie Behan Conservation
Land System (CLS) from Covered Activities in the Pima County MSCP
Permit Area. ..................................................................................................... 24

vi

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Table 3.3. Acres of habitat loss projected to occur as a result of Covered Activities
within the Permit Area. Talus snails were not part of this analysis because
of their localized distribution. Habitat loss was calculated using Priority
Conservation Areas for all species except the Tumamoc globeberry and the
Sonoran desert tortoise, for which loss was calculated using modeled
habitat (see text for more information). ............................................................. 27
Table 4.1. Existing Pima County regulations and protocols that avoid and minimize
impacts to scenic, cultural, and wildlife resources. Pima County will notify
the USFWS if there are modifications to these regulations and protocols ........ 31
Table 4.2. Acres of mitigation that are anticipated to be needed for Pima County to
fulfill the mitigation obligations of the Section 10 permit. Mitigation is based
on projected impacts (Table 3.2) and corresponding MSCP mitigation
ratios. ............................................................................................................... 40
Table 4.3. Acres of potential mitigation credit that Pima County has already
acquired for the Section 10 permit, as it relates to the CLS and State Trust
lands. Mitigation acres are “adjusted” because Pima County will receive at
least 25% mitigation credit for State Trust Lands (see section 4.4). Table
4.4 relates how these potential mitigation acres accomplish the target 1:1
acreage conservation for each Covered Species. Figures exclude potential
mitigation lands that may result from those developments that Opt-In to the
County’s Section 10 permit............................................................................... 40
Table 4.4). Habitat mitigation acquired to date for the Covered Species based on
the current suite of mitigation lands. This assessment assumes that Pima
County will receive 25% mitigation credit for State Trust lands. A mitigation
to habitat-loss ratio of >1 indicates that more acres of habitat are expected
to be conserved over the 30-year permit period than are projected to be lost
to Covered Activities. Mitigation acres listed here do not include (1) future
acquisitions or natural open-space set asides by the private sector and (2)
lands outside of Pima County that are owned or leased by the County;
these will add additional mitigation acres for most species. PCA and
modeled habitat do not currently extend outside of Pima County..................... 43
Table 6.1. Summary of the single-species monitoring effort for the Pima County
MSCP. See Appendix O for more detail. .......................................................... 70
Table 7.1. Changed circumstances for the Pima County Section 10 permit................. 80
Table 7.2. Example of Unforeseen Circumstances, their impact on the Covered
Species and/or habitat, and potential responses by Pima County that may
warrant contingency efforts or funds from the USFWS. ................................... 88
Table 8.1. Estimated annual cost, in thousands of dollars, for Pima County to carry
out Section 10 permit activities for Permit Phase I (Permit Years 1-10).
Costs for managing the land acquisition program are included, but not the

vii

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

purchase price and associated due diligence costs. Estimated costs are
indexed to inflation (2.8%; mean from 2000-2010) and Permit Year 1
estimates are based on 2009 costs, plus one year of inflation. Employee
related expenses ("M1"; 28.8%), overhead ("M3"; 28.0% unless otherwise
noted), and other expenses such as equipment and supplies are included in
estimates. Salary increases for performance are not included. Compliance
and effectiveness monitoring costs are the only costs that are in addition to
the County's current MSCP activities. Pima County Departments/Divisions
Acronyms: NRPR = Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation; OSC =
Office of Sustainability and Conservation; RFCD = Regional Flood Control
District. ............................................................................................................. 94
Table 8.2. Properties acquired since June 2004 that will be used to help fulfill the
mitigation obligations for the Pima County MSCP. ........................................... 99
Table 9.1. Comparison of annual and decennial reports. ........................................... 106

List of Figures
Figure 2.1. Pima County MSCP Planning Area by land owner type and major
preserves............................................................................................................ 7
Figure 2.2. Maeveen Marie Behan Conservation Land System (CLS) in Pima
County. See section 2.2.2 for descriptions of CLS categories. ........................ 10
Figure 3.1. Permit Area of the Pima County MSCP, representing the area within
which Covered Activities under the Section 10 permit could occur. This
map is an approximation of the Permit Area; see text for Permit Area
description. ....................................................................................................... 14
Figure 3.2. Impacts that are projected to occur as a result of Covered Activities in
the Permit Area. Projected impacts are for analytical purposes and are not
intended to be used for parcel-specific determination of permit coverage.
The location and rate of development are likely to change during the 30year permit. ...................................................................................................... 25
Figure 4.1. Fee and lease land acquired by Pima County for mitigation of activities
covered under the Section 10 Permit. Includes about 2,000 acres of
proposed Recreation and Public Purposes Act patents and near-term
donations. Additional mitigation lands are likely to be acquired in the future. .. 41
Figure 5.1. Working cattle ranches are a cornerstone of the SDCP and represent
the bulk of the lands for which Pima County seeks mitigation for the Section
10 Permit. Where applicable, fee-simple lands are a darker shade than
associated grazing leases. ............................................................................... 64

viii

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

List of Appendices
Appendix A. Covered Species accounts .....................................................................A-1
Appendix B. Capital improvement projects that will be covered under Pima
County’s Section 10 Permit. Many impacts projected are in the existing
built environment; impacts to areas of natural cover are approximately
1,800 acres..................................................................................................A-172
Appendix C. Ranch management standards and guidelines. ...................................A-179
Appendix D. Land absorption, habitat impact, and mitigation analysis. Model
developed by Julia Fonseca, Cory Jones, Mike List, Mark Probstfeld,
and Sherry Ruther. ......................................................................................A-190
Appendix E. Summary of Pima County’s environmental ordinances and
protocols. .....................................................................................................A-197
Appendix F. Maeveen Marie Behan Conservation Lands System conservation
guidelines and mitigation ratios under the SDCP. Mitigation ratios
follow the same format: acres conserved:acres developed. Note that
mitigation ratios in this table differ from the mitigation ratios for MSCP
mitigation (see Section 4.3.1 in the MSCP). ................................................A-199
Appendix G. Lands that have been acquired or leased and which will be used
for MSCP mitigation. For a complete description of each property
including its resources and reason for purchase, see Pima County
(2011) and Fonseca and Jones (2009). ......................................................A-200
Appendix H. Generic ranch management agreement. .............................................A-202
Appendix I. Draft Conservation Easement for Mitigation Land Owned in Fee
Simple by Pima County or Pima County Regional Flood Control District.
This particular version is drafted for County-owned land, and would
need to be adapted for use on District-owned land. ....................................A-219
Appendix J. Conservation Easement template for private ranch lands. This
has—and will continue to be—used for easements held by Pima County
on private ranch lands. ................................................................................A-224
Appendix K. Habitat Protection Priorities in eastern Pima County. .........................A-230
Appendix L. List of prohibited and permitted activities on County-controlled
Mitigation Lands. .........................................................................................A-232
Appendix M. Draft Pima County MSCP Implementing Agreement. .........................A-237
Appendix N. Current Pima County Parks Rules, P.C.P.R. § 4-040. ........................A-248
Appendix O: Monitoring Plan for the Pima County MSCP ........................................A-254
Appendix P. Vegetation and Groundcover (Habitat) Monitoring Protocol for the
PCEMP........................................................................................................A-301

ix

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Executive Summary
The continued growth of the human-built environment in Pima County, Arizona will
result in the “incidental take” of species that are listed under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA). To avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to both listed and unlisted species
and their habitats, Pima County is submitting this Multi-species Conservation Plan
(MSCP) for 44 species (4 plants, 7 mammals, 8 birds, 5 fishes, 2 amphibians, 6 reptiles,
and 12 invertebrates) that may be impacted as a result of the otherwise lawful activities
of Pima County and its development community. The Incidental Take Permit, also
called a Section 10 permit, will be for 30 years. This MSCP is part of the required
documentation needed to receive an Incidental Take Permit under Section 10(a)(1)(B)
of the ESA.
The primary Covered Activities under the permit are maintenance and construction
activities carried out by Pima County and the Pima County Regional Flood Control
District (collectively referred to herein as ‘Pima County’ or ‘the County’) and certain
development activities of the private sector that occur within the Permit Area, which is a
subset of Pima County. Private development activities included as Covered Activities
are limited to grading 14,000 square feet or more on individual lots, property subdivided
for residential purposes, and certain development for non-residential purposes. Permit
coverage will be provided to single residential lots at the time Pima County issues an
individual grading permit to allow grading of 14,000 square feet or more, unless the
property owner declines coverage. Impacts related to private-sector development of
residential subdivisions and non-residential facilities will be covered under the County’s
Section 10 permit only when the property owner elects to participate, provided that
construction has not yet occurred and certain other criteria are met.
Based on the suite of Covered Activities and a modeling of urban growth projections,
Pima County anticipates that there will be approximately 36,000 acres of disturbance
resulting from the Covered Activities within the Permit Area during the 30-year permit
period. For this amount of disturbance, Pima County would provide approximately
112,000 acres of mitigation. Despite not yet having a Section 10 permit, Pima County
has acquired over 74,000 acres of fee-owned lands and over 124,000 acres of lease
lands that provide the portfolio of lands Pima County would use to fulfill the Section 10
permit mitigation obligations. Partial mitigation credit will be granted for lease lands and
for improving natural resource conditions on those lease lands. Other important
avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures rely upon the County’s continued
application of various County Code requirements and departmental procedures that
mandate the avoidance and mitigation of impacts to on-site sensitive resources.
Land management is a critical component of this MSCP. Current and on-going efforts
focus on protecting and perpetuating the continued health of those natural resources for
which the land was secured. Current management practices emphasize the restoration
of selected conservation targets (e.g., riparian areas) and minimize on-site threats such
as invasive species and illegal trash dumping. Because the portfolio of lands Pima
County intends to use for Section 10 permit mitigation includes active grazing lands,
ranch management is also forefront in the County’s land management responsibilities.

x

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Under the Section 10 permit, Pima County would continue to collect ranch–related
monitoring data and trend information and initiate a broader-scale ecological monitoring
program for a suite of program elements designed around individual species, species’
habitat, threats, and climate. Adaptive management will be employed in select settings,
for example in the ranchland element and in riparian restoration. The monitoring and
adaptive management programs will be reviewed with and by the USFWS to ensure
they are providing timely and relevant information.
This MSCP highlights a set of circumstances that may change after the USFWS issues
a Section 10 permit and for which Pima County will make efforts to address. These
Changed Circumstances range from increased groundwater withdrawal impacts on
riparian resources to increased off-road vehicle traffic. Unforeseen Circumstances are
those that the County cannot reasonably anticipate and, therefore, will not be held
responsible for addressing through management actions beyond those outlined in the
MSCP, including no additional requirements for financial or land resources.
Pima County has spent approximately $150 million on land acquisitions since 2004 in
preparation for the Section 10 permit mitigation needs. These dollars came primarily
from bond funds approved by voters in 2004. Most of the management and
enforcement functions associated with this MSCP are already taking place as the
County implements the natural resource and open-space elements of the Sonoran
Desert Conservation Plan. Implementation of the more comprehensive ecological
monitoring program, which is required subsequent to the issuance of the Section 10
permit, will result in new programmatic costs for the County.
Pima County has, to date, diligently enacted a transparent process in the development
of the MSCP and has provided abundant opportunities for public participation and
expert oversight. Pima County intends to carry this philosophy forward into the
implementation stages of the MSCP and will make annual and decennial reporting on
take, habitat loss, and mitigation activities available to the public.
The suite of conservation measures proposed in this MSCP provide a higher level of
protection for Covered Species and their habitats than would otherwise take place
without Pima County’s receipt of a Section 10 permit. The County’s receipt of a Section
10 permit would also increase regulatory certainty and streamline ESA compliance for
the County as well as other members of the community, especially the development
sector.

xi

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

1

INTRODUCTION TO THE PIMA COUNTY MULTISPECIES CONSERVATION PLAN

Following the 1997 listing of the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl (Glaucidium brasilianum
cactorum) as a federally-endangered species, the Pima County Board of Supervisors
initiated the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP). The purpose of the SDCP was
to develop a regional plan to address the long-term conservation and preservation of
the County’s natural and cultural resources (Pima County 2000b). The development of
the SDCP was an iterative process whereby planning tools were developed using
science-based principles, shaped by public input and review, and ultimately refined into
proposals that reflected the community’s values. Many SDCP initiatives are currently
being implemented.
This MSCP represents the culmination of many years of planning and studies in the
development of the biological element of the SDCP. That work effort was guided by the
SDCP biological goal, as established by the Science Technical Advisory Team (STAT):
“To ensure the long-term survival of the full spectrum of plants and
animals that are indigenous to Pima County through maintaining or
improving the habitat conditions and ecosystem functions necessary for
their survival.”
In 2001, the Pima County Board of Supervisors adopted the Pima County
Comprehensive Land Use Plan Update (Pima County 2001a), which incorporated landuse concepts, policies, and principles of conservation that were identified in the draft
Preliminary SDCP (Pima County 2000b). Other milestones in the development of the
SDCP include defining land-protection priorities, securing funds for land acquisitions,
acquiring and managing new preserves, and revising and up-dating County regulations.
Formalizing the County’s conservation commitments for compliance with the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) is the next milestone in advancing the vision of the
SDCP.

1.1

Purpose and Need for the MSCP

As mentioned, the Pima County Multi-species Conservation Plan (MSCP) is a keystone
facet of the SDCP that would provide Pima County with incidental take protection under
the ESA for Covered Species and Covered Activities, as identified herein. Specifically,
Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the “take” of threatened and endangered species
including “the attempt or action to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect” such species. However, Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the ESA authorizes
exceptions for take that may occur incidentally to otherwise lawful activities through the
issuance of a permit that requires development and implementation of a conservation
plan. A conservation plan must thoroughly describe the effects of the covered activities
and any anticipated take on affected species and the conservation measures that will
avoid, minimize, and mitigate these impacts. For the purpose of the County’s Section
10 permit, the County’s conservation plan and associated plan requirements are to:

1

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft



Permit non-Federal projects to take federally-listed species while not jeopardizing
their long-term survival in the wild;



Promote the long-term conservation of Covered Species and their habitats;



Reduce conflicts between Covered Species and economic activities;



Develop partnerships both within the public sector and between the public and
private sectors. Examples of partnerships include monitoring and property
management;



Provide regulatory streamlining for county operations and the private sector;



Provide opportunities for the conservation of State Trust lands.

The County’s proposed conservation plan addresses the needs of multiple species and
their habitats, hence the multi-species designation (i.e., Multi-species Conservation
Plan; MSCP). As part of the MSCP and SDCP planning efforts, Pima County and its
cooperators developed a host of planning documents that together provide a thorough
analysis of Pima County’s natural resources, conditions, and warranted conservation
measures. This MSCP document is not intended as a summary of these studies (see
section 2.2 for summary information), but rather it:


Serves as the document of record for anticipated incidental take, habitat loss,
mitigation, management, and monitoring of Covered Species and their habitats
as a result of Covered Activities;



Establishes a phased approach to implementing the Pima County MSCP with
appropriate interim milestones for meeting requirements associated with
projected impacts;



Provides a means for tracking mitigation obligations and credit; and



Provides a programmatic framework for developing other Section 10 permits for
non-Pima County jurisdictions and potentially facilitating Section 7(a)(1)
consultations for Federal land management partners.

1.2

MCSP Biological Goal and Objectives

The biological goal of the Pima County MSCP is to provide a long-term conservation
benefit to Covered Species, their habitats, and ecosystem processes within the planning
area while preserving the ability of Pima County and its development community to
engage in otherwise lawful development-related activities.
The biological objectives for the MSCP are to:
1. Mitigate habitat loss of Covered Species in a manner consistent with the
County’s landscape-level reserve as described by the Maeveen Marie Behan
Conservation Lands System (or CLS);

2

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

2. Avoid and minimize take by siting Covered Activities such that they promote the
integrity of the CLS and are situated so that sensitive on-site resources are
avoided or conserved;
3. Manage mitigation lands to prioritize the conservation of Covered Species and
their habitats, within the constraints allowed by law;
4. Enhance habitat for Covered Species, prevent landscape fragmentation, and
support species establishment or recovery;
5. Detect potentially harmful and ecologically significant changes early enough to
implement management practices that reverse or prevent long-term degradation
of Covered Species and their habitats.

1.3

Pima County MSCP: Required Elements

As stipulated in Section 10(a)(2)(A) of the ESA, Pima County must address the
following required elements in this MSCP:


The impact(s) that will likely result from the proposed incidental taking (see
Chapter 3);



Those steps Pima County will take to avoid, minimize and mitigate such impacts
(see Chapter 4);



The funding that will be available to implement such steps (see Chapter 8);



Alternative actions to the anticipated incidental taking that were considered (see
next section); and



Other measures that may be required or appropriate for the purposes of the plan.

In the updated addendum to the HCP Handbook (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000),
a “5-point policy” further articulates components of the Habitat Conservation Planning
program that must also be addressed, namely: biological goals, adaptive management,
monitoring, permit duration, and public participation. These elements are addressed
throughout this MSCP.

1.4

Alternatives to Incidental Take

Pima County has considered alternatives to the incidental taking of ESA listed species
that would result from Covered Activities as proposed herein. These alternatives are
not the alternatives evaluated in the companion Environmental Impact Statement, but
respond to requirements of the ESA Section 10(a)(2)(A) described above.
Alternative 1: Implementation of the Pima County MSCP (Preferred Alternative).
This alternative would provide Section 10 permit coverage for County projects and
certain activities of the private sector as approved by Pima County (see Section 3.3 for
a complete list of Covered Activities). This alternative would allow for a level of take for
44 Covered Species. In order to ensure that the incidental take authorized does not

3

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

jeopardize or preclude recovery of the Covered Species, Pima County will implement a
rigorous conservation program that includes providing mitigation lands; application of
avoidance and minimization measures; a comprehensive, long-term ecological
monitoring program; and a management program capable of responding to inputs from
the ecological monitoring program. Under this alternative, private-development projects
included under the Section 10 permit would have no exposure to the risk of illegally
taking any species covered by the permit and would have gained this protection with
little, if any, cost to the individual project proponent. This opportunity would otherwise
only be available if the entire project was subject to a Section 7 consultation or, for nonFederal actions, the project proponent secured an individual Section 10 permit; both
coming at the sole expense of the project proponent. Section 7 consultations only cover
the species that are federally-listed at the time of the consultation. In addition to
establishing a single entity with the responsibility to provide mitigation for otherwise
disparate projects, this alternative affords mitigation and conservation that generates
landscape-level ecosystem benefits, which would not occur without a regional Section
10 permit, such as Pima County is pursuing.
Alternative 2: Status Quo. Under this alternative, each public-sector and privatesector project with the potential for take of listed animals must comply with the ESA by
either 1) undergoing a Section 7 consultation process with the USFWS if appropriate, or
2) obtaining an individual Section 10 permit from the USFWS for non-Federal actions
not covered under Section 7. Though avoidance, minimization, and mitigation
measures may be an outcome of Section 7 or individual Section 10 permits, the
cumulative effects of adverse impacts or take on listed species may be greater than for
Alternative 1 because of the piecemeal approach to conservation and mitigation of a
project-by-project approach rather than a regional or landscape approach, as proposed
by Pima County’s MSCP. Furthermore, under Alternative 2 there is no consideration of
non-listed species unless they are migratory birds or bald or golden eagles. Alternative
2 has the potential to create uneven levels of conservation for the listed species
because the USFWS has to review and coordinate implementation of numerous
individual, un-related agreements. This alternative also lacks continuity of minimization,
management and monitoring activities, which leads to inefficiencies and, potentially,
additional take of listed species.
Alternative 3: No Take of Listed Species. Under this alternative, all development
activities would stop when and where there is potential for incidental take of listed
species, until such time as the species is de-listed or moves on, or the intended land
use is changed such that no take would occur. This option is not possible given the
constitutional requirement of Pima County to issue certain permits as delegated by the
State of Arizona, and the importance of the County’s continued services for public
health, safety, and welfare, which ultimately depend on the economic prosperity of the
County. Even if all projects with the potential for take of listed species were halted or reconfigured to avoid take, inadvertent take of listed species would still occur due to
failures to detect the species or unintended consequences of development upon factors
essential for the survival of individual plants and animals. Under this alternative, there
would be no conservation or management of habitat for those species where take is
avoided by deferring the project to a time when the habitat is unoccupied. Furthermore,

4

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

there would be no conservation or mitigation for unlisted species or plant species under
this alternative. This alternative would provide no protection or incentive for species
and habitat enhancements or projects that have the potential to result in benefits to
species and their habitats.

5

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

2

PLANNING AREA AND BACKGROUND
INFORMATION

2.1

Pima County MSCP Planning Area

The Planning Area for the Pima County MSCP is the entire 9,184 square miles
(5,879,669 acres) of Pima County. Elevations range from 1,200 feet in the western
portion of the County to over 9,000 feet in the Catalina Mountains in the northeastern
portion of the County. Geographically, the Planning Area is representative of the Basin
and Range Province, with mountainous “sky islands” separated by the desert valleys.
The Tohono O'odham Nation is the single largest land holder in Pima County and,
together with the Pascua Yaqui Nation, results in Tribal lands accounting for 42% of
Pima County’s land ownership (Table 2.1; Fig. 2.1). The Federal government and the
State of Arizona are the second and third largest land owners in Pima County,
respectively. Pima County owns <2% of the land in the County. Incorporated
jurisdictions within Pima County include the cities of Tucson and South Tucson, and the
towns of Oro Valley, Marana, and Sahuarita.

2.2

Collection and Synthesis of Data for the SDCP and MSCP

Chapter 1 provides an overview to Pima County’s initiation of a comprehensive planning
process for the SDCP in 1998. Crucial to the part of that effort related to the
conservation of biological diversity was the team of natural resource scientists, known
as the Science Technical Advisory Team (STAT; see section 11.2 for list of participants)
who were selected for their regional expertise. The STAT, Pima County staff,
consultants, and other biologists and natural resource managers identified key planning
elements and information necessary to design a biological reserve such as: species of
greatest conservation concern (see section 2.2.1); threats and stressors (Pima County
2000a); and mapping and data gathering needs (RECON Environmental Inc. 2000a).
This work led to the design of a regional biological reserve system, known as the
Table 2.1. Land ownership in Pima County.
Owner
Federal: Bureau of Land Management
Federal: Bureau of Reclamation
Federal: Department of Defense
Federal: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal: National Park Service
Federal: U.S. Forest Service
State of Arizona
Tribal
Pima County
Municipal
Private
Total acres

Acres
375,486
2,997
68,251
514,157
409,629
336,890
863,858
2,476,159
110,868
44,059
686,911
5,879,669

6

Percent Ownership in Pima County
(rounded)
6.4
<0.1
1.2
8.7
7.0
5.7
14.7
42.1
1.9
0.8
11.7

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Figure 2.1. Pima County MSCP Planning Area by land owner type and major preserves.

7

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Maeveen Marie Behan Conservation Lands System (herein Conservation Lands
System or CLS; Pima County 2001a; see section 2.2.2 below). The results of this
process, which is detailed in an extensive series of technical documents (Pima County
2000e, b, d, 2001c, d), form the foundation of the Pima County MSCP.
2.2.1

Priority Vulnerable Species

The plant and animal information and data that STAT collected in the development of
the biological component of the SDCP is foundational to this MSCP. In review, Pima
County, under the direction of the STAT, developed a list of the most vulnerable plants
and animals within Pima County (RECON Environmental Inc. 2000b). Planners began
with a list of over 100 species recognized by the Federal government as imperiled,
species extirpated from Pima County, and additional species whose populations are in
decline or jeopardy. That list was then refined based on species’ occurrence, residency
status, and opportunities for conservation in Pima County (Fonseca and Scalero 1999).
This refinement resulted in a list of 56 species that became known as the Priority
Vulnerable Species (RECON Environmental Inc. 2000a). These species played an
instrumental role in the development of the biological component of the SDCP and
many of the subsequent planning tools, such as the CLS. For purposes of the MSCP,
the list of Priority Vulnerable Species has been further reduced to those species
warranting Section 10 permit coverage. These species, known as the Covered
Species, are the focus of this MSCP.
2.2.2

The Maeveen Marie Behan Conservation Lands System (CLS) and the
Reserve Design Process

For purposes of this MSCP, the CLS is the primary tool by which Pima County will,
along with species’ Priority Conservation Areas, evaluate habitat loss and determine
mitigation necessary to maintain compliance with the terms of the Section 10 permit.
Pima County’s use of the CLS for the permit will differ from its use to implement the
Environmental Element of the County’s Comprehensive Plan. Although the CLS map
and categories are the same in both applications, Pima County will hold itself to higher
mitigation ratios for impacts that occur on lands within the CLS than those mitigation
ratios the Board of Supervisors uses when applying the Environmental Element of the
Comprehensive Plan to discretionary land-use changes on private property. The
remainder of this section provides background information on the development of the
CLS.
The scientific foundation for the CLS is information relating to both the natural and built
environments in Pima County, especially the identification of areas of high species
richness (i.e., total number of species) of Priority Vulnerable Species and unique
landscape features known as Special Elements (Fonseca and Connolly 2002). For this
process, Pima County and its cooperators used a Geographic Information System to
map the distribution of known locations for Priority Vulnerable Species and their
potential habitat by modeling important, broad-scale environmental variables (e.g.,
vegetation, soils, and water features) for each Priority Vulnerable Species (RECON
Environmental Inc. 2000a). Areas of high species richness provided the starting point

8

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

for drawing the initial reserve system boundaries, which were delineated on the basis of
a complex set of rules developed by STAT and guided by principles of reserve design
(RECON Environmental Inc. 2001). In addition to modeling species’ habitat, Pima
County, in consultation with species experts, also identified critical conservation areas
for each Covered Species. These areas are known as Priority Conservation Areas
(PCAs) and are the primary mechanism for estimating acres of take for individual
Covered Species for the MSCP/EIS (see Section 3.6.1 for more information on the use
of the PCAs).
There are seven CLS categories that are largely distinguished by their comparative
values in supporting and representing biological diversity. Tribal lands are excluded
from the CLS (Fig. 2.2, Table 2.2). Details about how the CLS is used to determine
Pima County’s mitigation commitments for this MSCP are presented in Section 4.3 and
additional information regarding conservation guidelines for each CLS category can be
found in Appendix F. The seven CLS categories are:
Biological Core Management Areas. These areas are primarily distinguished from other
lands within the CLS by their potential to support habitat for five or more Priority
Vulnerable Species. They also overlay large blocks of contiguous habitat and biological
reserves.
Multiple Use Management Areas. These areas are primarily distinguished from other
lands within the CLS by their potential to support habitat for three or more Priority
Vulnerable Species and they connect large blocks of contiguous habitat and biological
reserves. As such they are not as biologically rich as those lands designated as
Biological Core Management Areas.
Important Riparian Areas. These riparian areas are valued for their higher water
availability, vegetation density, and biological productivity. They are also fundamental
to preserving landscape connectivity.
Scientific Research Areas. Lands currently managed for scientific research: the Santa
Rita Experimental Range and the University of Arizona Desert Laboratory (at Tumamoc
Hill).
Table 2.2. Acres of land in each Maeveen Marie Behan Conservation Land
System (CLS) category and non-CLS lands in Pima County, excluding tribal
lands.
Relationship to CLS
Inside CLS

CLS Category
Biological Core Management Area
Multiple Use Management Area
Important Riparian Area
Scientific Research Areaa
Agricultural Inholding
Special Species Management Areaa

Total (acres)
899,915
950,505
158,178
54,000
9,691
997,582
Outside CLS
456,513
a Scientific Research Areas and Special Species Management Areas can overlay other CLS categories.

9

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Figure 2.2. Maeveen Marie Behan Conservation Land System (CLS) in Pima County. See section 2.2.2 for
descriptions of CLS categories.

10

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Agricultural In-holdings within the CLS. Lands utilized for agricultural purposes and
lands where agricultural uses have been abandoned. Agricultural land uses, in general,
are more conducive to the movement of native fauna and functional pollination
processes than other lands supporting higher-intensity human uses.
Special Species Management Areas. These areas are defined as crucial for the
conservation of three animal species of special concern to Pima County (cactus
ferruginous pygmy-owl, southwestern willow flycatcher, and Mexican spotted owl). (The
Mexican spotted owl is not a Covered Species, but it was considered in the planning
process for the Special Species Management Area).
Critical Landscape Connections. These are broadly defined areas that provide
connectivity for movement of native biological resources, but which also contain
potential or existing barriers that can isolate major conservation areas.
The development of the CLS was rooted in a rigorous scientific process and has since
become a central planning element in the County’s work in furthering the goals of the
SDCP. The CLS will also play a key role in the ensuring the success of the MSCP
beyond its use as a tool for calculating mitigation credit. First, the CLS encourages a
more compact urban form by not requiring of developers that land be set aside in areas
that are outside of the CLS and in areas closer to the urban core. This is intended to
ease development pressure in exurban areas and avoid take of species and their
habitats. When development does occur in the CLS, the categories provide a
framework for helping to ensure that development occurring in areas of high species
richness of Covered Species receive both the maximum amount of on-site set asides
and off-site mitigation. The full package of on-site set asides, off-site mitigation, and the
acknowledgement of critical landscape connections provides for greater permeability of
the landscape by Covered Species and the protection of ecosystem processes that are
critical to the long-term survival of Covered Species within the Permit Area. In
summary, the CLS seeks to:


Retain the diverse representation of physical and environmental conditions;



Conserve the greatest number of species and their habitats;



Preserve an intact and functional ecosystem;



Maximize the extent of roadless areas;



Minimize the expansion of exotic or invasive species; and



Retain the connectivity of reserve areas with functional corridors.

2.2.3

Public Participation in the SDCP and MSCP

Pima County has made participation by government agencies, organizations, and
interested citizens a top priority in the SDCP and MSCP planning processes (see
Chapter 11). Participation has included public scoping meetings and comment periods,
an 80-member citizens’ Steering Committee (see Section 11.2.6 for Steering Committee
membership), over 400 public meetings, a series of educational sessions and

11

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

workshops, meetings of 12 advisory and technical teams, and numerous informal
meetings with a variety of interest groups and concerned citizens. Contributions of
information and review from more than 150 scientists, as well as locally and nationally
recognized experts in conservation biology, were also incorporated into the MSCP and
SDCP.
Local and tribal jurisdictions and State and Federal agencies participated in meetings,
on committees, and as members of the Government Working Group. Their concerns
and input were included in the reserve design and conservation planning processes.
Entities with which Pima County has formal working agreements and/or cooperative
agreements are discussed throughout this document.
Seven previous drafts of the MSCP have been made available to stakeholders for
review and comment over an eight-year period. This public draft supersedes all other
drafts.

12

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

3

PLAN SCOPE AND ANTICIPATED IMPACTS

3.1

Permit Area

The area in which Pima County is seeking a Section 10 permit (herein the permit), is
known as the Permit Area and is a subset of Pima County that includes those lands
under the legal authority of the Pima County Board of Supervisors or the Pima County
Regional Flood Control District Board of Directors (collectively referred to herein as
“Pima County” or the “County”). The Permit Area is shown in Fig. 3.1 and includes all:


Private lands within unincorporated Pima County under the legal authority of
Pima County; and



Lands the County owns in fee simple and lands on which the County possesses
a property right, including those located within other jurisdictions such as the
cities and towns of Tucson, Marana, Oro Valley, and Sahuarita, and adjacent
counties; and



Lands on which Pima County constructs and maintains infrastructure, including
lands within the incorporated areas of Tucson, Marana, Oro Valley, South
Tucson or in adjacent counties (Santa Cruz, Cochise and Pinal). See Section
3.4.1.2 for clarifications to Pima County activities in adjacent counties.

The Permit Area also includes State Trust lands:


Leased to Pima County or used as road or drainage-way easements;



That have the potential to be released to the private sector for development and
which would subsequently come under the regulatory authority of Pima County;



Where Pima County may acquire the land in fee simple.

The Permit Area also includes certain Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands that:


Pima County might patent for open-space purposes either through the
Recreation and Public Purposes Act or through future land exchanges, or



Are expected to be released to the private sector for development and which
would subsequently come under the regulatory authority of Pima County.

13

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Figure 3.1. Permit Area of the Pima County MSCP, representing the area within which Covered Activities under
the Section 10 permit could occur. This map is an approximation of the Permit Area; see text for Permit Area
description.

14

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

The following are explicitly excluded from the Permit Area:


All other Federal lands not identified above;



Federally-reserved tribal lands;



Lands within incorporated areas, except those identified above that are owned
or controlled by Pima County for construction and/or maintenance of County
infrastructure;



Lands in unincorporated Pima County that are owned by incorporated
jurisdictions;



Lands annexed into incorporated areas, excluding those lands owned by Pima
County;



County-maintained roadways within Federal or Tribal lands,



State Trust lands within Federal reserves.

The Permit Area is expected to change as: (1) cities and towns annex unincorporated
lands, (2) Pima County acquires or disposes of land, and (3) Federal land is disposed of
or exchanged. Some of these changes may require an amendment to the Permit (see
Section 4.10 for permit amendment conditions and procedures).

3.2

Permit Duration

Pima County’s Section 10 permit will be for 30 years, a period time that was felt to be
adequate for the County and the development community’s activities and for the
County’s mitigation strategy. If needed, Pima County can request an extension of the
permit for additional acreage within the 30-year term, by way of a permit amendment.
Pima County could also request additional time, after the 30 year term is over, via a
permit renewal.

3.3

Covered Species

Pima County is seeking permit coverage for 44 species: 4 plants, 7 mammals, 8 birds, 5
fishes, 2 amphibians, and 6 reptiles, and 12 invertebrates (mollusks) (Table 3.1). Eight
species are currently listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered
Species Act and an additional five species are candidates or have been petitioned for
listing under the Endangered Species Act. The remaining species are included in the
County’s MSCP based on their potential to be listed within the Permit period and their
distribution relative to Covered Activities. Detailed information on the Covered Species
can be found in Appendix A; additional information can be found in Pima County
(2001c).

15

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Table 3.1. Species to be covered under Pima County’s Section 10 permit. For
additional information on these species, see Appendix A.
Taxon
Plants

Common name
Pima pineapple cactus
Needle-spined pineapple cactus

Scientific name
Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina
Echinomastus erectocentrus var.
erectocentrus
Lilaeopsis schaffneriana recurva
Tumamoca macdougalii
Choeronycteris mexicana
Lasiurus blossevillii
Lasiurus ega
Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuena
Macrotus californicus
Plecotus townsendii pallescens
Peromyscus merriami
Athene cunicularia hypugaea
Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum
Aimophila carpalis
Buteo swainsoni
Coccyzus americanus
Empidonax traillii extimus
Pipilo aberti
Vireo bellii arizonea
Agosia chrysogaster
Catostomus clarki
Catostomus insignis
Gila intermedia
Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis
Lithobates chiricahuensis
Lithobates yavapaiensis
Terrapene ornata luteola

ESA
Statusa
E

Designated Critical
Habitat?

Huachuca water umbel
E
Yes
Tumamoc globeberry
Mammals
Mexican long-tongued bat
Western red bat
Southern yellow bat
Lesser long-nosed bat
E
California leaf-nosed bat
Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat
Merriam’s mouse
Birds
Burrowing owl
Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl
P/R
Rufous-winged sparrow
Swainson’s hawk
Western yellow-billed cuckoo
C
Southwestern willow flycatcher
E
Yes
Abert’s towhee
Bell’s vireo
Fishes
Longfin dace
Desert sucker
Sonora sucker
Gila chub
E
Yes
Gila topminnow
E
Amphibians
Chiricahua leopard frog
T
Yes
Lowland leopard frog
Reptiles
Desert box turtle
Desert tortoise (Sonoran
population)
Gopherus agassizii
C
Tucson shovel-nosed snake
Chionactis occipitalis klauberi
C
Northern Mexican gartersnake
Thamnophis eques megalops
C
Giant spotted whiptail
Aspidoscelis burti stictogramma
Ground snake (valley form)
Sonora semiannulata
Invertebrates San Xavier talus snail
Sonorella eremita
CA
Talus snail sp.
Sonorella ambigua ambigua; syn. papagorum
Talus snail sp.
Sonorella imperatrix
Talus snail sp.
Sonorella imperialis
Talus snail sp.
Sonorella magdalensis; syn. tumamocensis
Talus snail sp.
Sonorella meadi
Talus snail sp.
Sonorella odorata odorata; syn. marmoris
Talus snail sp.
Sonorella rinconensis
Talus snail sp.
Sonorella sabinoenis buehmanensis
Talus snail sp.
Sonorella sabinoensis tucsonica
Talus snail sp.
Sonorella sitiens sitiens
Talus snail sp.
Sonorella tortillita
a Endangered Species Act status: E = Endangered; T= Threatened; P/R = Petitioned or under Review by USFWS for possible listing; C =
candidate; CA = Protected under a conservation agreement.

16

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

3.4

Covered Activities for the Pima County MSCP

Activities to be covered by the incidental take provisions of the Section 10 permit must
be:


Within the Permit Area



Likely to result in incidental take; and



Reasonably certain to occur over the life of the permit; and



Subject to the authority of Pima County.

Using these initial criteria, the following will be considered a Covered Activity:


Grading of 14,000 square feet or more on a privately-owned parcel and when —
at the time when Pima County issues a Type 1 grading permit—the property
owner elects to participate in the County’s Section 10 permit; and



Development of a privately-owned property where Pima County has approved a
residential subdivision plat and the property owner elects to participate in the
County’s Section10 permit (see section 3.3.1.1); and



Development of a privately-owned property where Pima County has approved a
development plan for non-residential uses and the property owner elects to
participate in the County’s Section 10 permit (see Section 3.3.1.1); and



Activities of the County including construction, repair, maintenance, and
operation of County facilities and infrastructure; and



Construction, operation, and maintenance of renewable energy generation
projects located on lands the County leases specifically for that purpose; and



Relocation of utilities within County rights-of-way, where required by Pima
County; and



Monitoring and land management activities including surveys, scientific studies,
and other such activities carried out by Pima County and its cooperators for the
purposes of this MSCP; and



Restoration activities such as vegetation treatments such as wildland fire that are
intended to improve the biological and ecological values including; and



Recreation activities authorized by Pima County; and



County ranch-management activities—exclusive of livestock herbivory and
trampling—on land owned by the County and lands managed by the County
through grazing leases issued by the State of Arizona.

The County will cover up to approximately 36,000 acres of new ground-disturbing
activities, which can come from any combination of Covered Activities. The County will
reserve approximately 5,000 acres to cover its construction and maintenance activities;
the remaining 31,000 acres is allocated for ground disturbances caused by privatesector development.

17

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

3.4.1

Additional Details on Select Covered Activities

This section provides additional details on Covered Activities.
3.4.1.1 Development on Private Property
Pima County proposes to provide Section 10 permit coverage to private developmentrelated disturbances within the Permit Area. Permit coverage will be available through
one of two avenues, described below. The County will grant permit coverage for
development on private property on a first come, first serve basis.
3.4.1.1.1 Coverage for Individual, Single-Dwelling Residential Lots
Pima County will provide coverage for private development-related disturbances on
parcels where the County issues a Type 1 grading permit that allows for the grading of
14,000 square feet or more on a single-dwelling residential lot. If specifically directed by
the property owner at the time of the Type 1 grading permit issuance, the property
owner can withhold permit coverage, which is referred to as the ‘Opt-out Provision.’
If permit coverage is provided, Pima County will bring the entire parcel under the
protection of the Section 10 permit and will provide mitigation, as appropriate, as if the
entire parcel were to be disturbed, regardless of the amount of grading sanctioned by
the Type 1 grading permit. Pima County would apply coverage to the entire parcel at
the time the first Type 1 grading permit is issued. This strategy provides certainty to the
property owner, as well as Pima County, that the planned disturbance and any potential
future disturbances will be fully mitigated.
Several other categories of grading require the need to obtain a Type 1 grading permit
from Pima County; however, Pima County will limit Section 10 permit coverage to only
those Type 1 grading permits that approve grading of 14,000 square feet or more on a
single-dwelling residential lot.
3.4.1.1.2 Coverage for Residential Subdivisions and Non-residential
Developments
If they so choose, any property owner who intends to develop their property as a
residential subdivision or as a non-residential development can gain coverage under the
County’s Section 10 permit provided certain criteria are met. Gaining coverage under
the County’s Section 10 permit in this manner is referred to as the ‘Opt-in Provision’.
The opportunity to opt-in is available only when all of the following conditions and
situations exist:


The County has issued its final approval on the subdivision plat or development
plan;



The entire area within the boundaries of the subdivision plat or development
plan is under ownership of a single entity;



Grading or development, as stipulated in the County-approved subdivision plat
or development plan, has not commenced;

18

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft



Grading or building permits associated with the subdivision plat or development
plan have not been issued; and



Application for a Type II grading permit has been made, but not approved;

For those projects that were subject to compliance with the CLS conservation
guidelines, the County intends to utilize natural open-space areas (can be either on-site
or off-site) that are set aside to comply with the CLS as Section 10 mitigation lands.
The County will require those areas to be permanently protected as natural open space
via a legally-enforceable instrument acceptable to Pima County. This legallyenforceable instrument must be executed before the County grants coverage to the
project. Other details of this coverage include:


Pima County will grant permit coverage and provide mitigation for only that
area to be developed, as identified on the subdivision plat or development
plan.



Geographic information system polygons will be used to track acres of
development as well as acres reserved as mitigation lands, where
appropriate.

3.4.1.2 Pima County Activities
County actions, including ongoing projects; maintenance and repair of County rights-ofway, easements, and other properties; and projects in the Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) will be covered by the Section 10 permit. Appendix B lists CIP projects
that are anticipated to be completed over the next 30 years. An updated CIP project
listing will be provided as a component of each annual compliance report. Regardless
of the specific projects implemented, total combined impacts of the County’s CIP and
private development activities will not exceed 36,000 acres.
Permit coverage will also extend to activities associated with the duties and operations
of all Pima County departments (e.g., Sheriff, Transportation, Sustainability and
Conservation, Regional Water Reclamation, Development Services, Health, Facilities
Management, and Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation) and the activities of the
Pima County Regional Flood Control District. Unless otherwise noted, Covered
Activities do not extend into adjacent counties.
Pima County Development Services’ primary covered activity in relation to the MSCP is
the issuance of Type 1 grading permits and the approvals of subdivision plats and
development plans as previously described in Section 3.4.1.1.
The activities of the District include alterations to federally mapped floodplains such as
those proposed in Conditional Letters of Map Revision, and to non-federally mapped
floodplains in the course of the District’s construction and operation of flood and erosion
control facilities. The District intends that their watercourse maintenance activities,
including those which fall under the existing Clean Water Act, Section 404, are covered
activities for the purpose of this Section 10 permit, including their activities under
Regional General Permits 63 and 81. The District may wish to establish locations for
offsetting impacts on Waters of the US. These covered activities would be located on

19

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

lands owned by Pima County or the District and would conform with Corps of Engineers
mitigation requirements in 33 CFR Parts 325 and 332. District responsibilities also
include river park construction, acquisition and management of floodprone lands,
installation of stream and rain gages, and regulation of floodplain activities through a
floodplain management ordinance. All of the District’s activities, except for installation
and maintenance of stream and rain gages in Santa Cruz and Pinal Counties, are
located in Pima County.
Covered activities of the Department of Transportation include road widening and new
road and bridge construction, and maintenance of existing roads, culverts and bridges.
All of these activities are confined to Pima County, except for maintenance of the
Arivaca Road in Santa Cruz County.
Covered activities of the Regional Water Reclamation Department include sewage
conveyance, odor control, and sewage treatment in eastern Pima County and the Eagle
Crest subdivision in Pinal County. The Department also recharges and stores treated
effluent in underground storage facilities, otherwise known as recharge facilities in
eastern Pima County.
Covered activities include recreation authorized by Pima County including trailhead
parking, permits for access to Cienega Creek Natural Preserve and other Countymanaged parks, and activities described in leases, operating agreements,
intergovernmental agreements and special-use permits. At present, Pima County has
leased portions of the following sites to operators providing recreation, cultural and
educational opportunities to the public:


Southeast Regional Park



Tucson Mountain Park



Colossal Cave Mountain Park



Arthur Pack Park



Ajo Regional Park



Rillito Racetrack



Mike Jacobs Sportspark



Titan Missile Park



Pima Air and Space Museum



Mission Gardens

20

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Also covered are Pima County’s operation and authorized recreational activities, mainly
turf parks and trails, on lands not only owned by Pima County, but also school districts,
State Trust land easements, municipalities and private lands.
County projects on Federal lands, including within Coronado National Forest (e.g., Mt.
Lemmon Highway repairs, Summerhaven spray field modifications) and Bureau of
Reclamation and Bureau of Land Management (e.g. management, recreation) and
federally designated reservations are not proposed for Section 10 permit coverage. Any
potential take of ESA-listed species on federal or tribal lands would be evaluated
through the Section 7 process.
3.4.1.3 Mosquito Control for Public Health
Pima County will, for purposes related to public health, continue to monitor and actively
manage water bodies to control mosquito populations. Mosquitoes in southern Arizona
are considered a public health nuisance because they are vectors for the West Nile
virus and may, in the future, prove to be vectors for other life-threatening diseases such
as dengue fever. To preserve public health, agencies in the region have employed a
host of mosquito control methods, some of which include the use of fish and particularly
the non-native mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis). Studies have shown that native fish,
such as Gila topminnow and desert pupfish are just as effective as mosquitofish in
controlling mosquito larvae in many public-health situations (Childs 2006). County staff,
in coordination with USFWS staff, will continue to work to use native fish for antimosquito efforts and Pima County will be responsible for administering and
implementing the mosquito control program in coordination and consultation with the
Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) and USFWS. Mosquito control by native
fish would be included in the Riparian and Aquatic Species Management Plan.
Baseline occurrence of these native fish species at specific sites will be established
during the coordination process. Take of native fish species used for this purpose,
which would return sites back to the established baseline, will be covered by the County
MSCP and associated Section 10 permit.
3.4.1.4 Ranching Activities
Ranch activities that are authorized by Pima County such as construction and
maintenance of infrastructure (e.g., construction of new stock waters, cattle guards, and
fencing) on County-managed lands are covered under the Section 10 permit. These
activities occur primarily in Pima County, however the permit area includes the portions
of ranchland managed by Pima County in Santa Cruz, Pinal and Cochise counties.
Activities by livestock (i.e., trampling and herbivory) on ranch lands will not be a
Covered Activity. Even though impacts potentially related to the physical act of grazing
are not being proposed for coverage under the MSCP, Pima County is committed to
monitoring and managing its fee-owned and leased lands according to a strict set of
standards and guidelines (Appendix C). These standards and guidelines will govern
grazing on mitigation lands; details on implementation of standards and guides will be
developed in consultation with the USFWS. Further, Pima County is not covering
grazing because: 1) other, more quantifiable ranch management activities are being

21

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

covered, (2) monitoring impacts on habitats and Covered Species resulting from cattle
grazing is difficult and done correctly would divert resources from other monitoring
efforts, (3) there is minimal likelihood of needing take coverage for this category, and (4)
coverage could be made available later through a permit amendment if MSCP
implementation and monitoring indicate it is appropriate. If necessary, take of Covered
Species can be addressed through Section 7 consultations (for County leases on
Federal lands) or considered for inclusion in this Section 10 permit via the permit
amendment process.
Pima County may implement a management program to improve resource conditions as
compared to those present at the time of the County’s lease or acquisition or at the time
of permit issuance. If such a program proves to be successful, Pima County may seek
to a gain additional mitigation credit towards the County’s mitigation requirements for
the Section 10 permit (see Chapter 4). Resource improvement or enhancement actions
by County staff or its agents are Covered Activities under the MSCP.
3.4.2

Activities Not Covered by the Permit

Activities not specifically proposed for coverage (as presented in Section 3.3.2) will not
be covered by Pima County’s Section 10 Permit. These activities include but are not
limited to:


Grading of less than 14,000 square feet on private property.



Ground-disturbing activities conducted on State Trust land by private or state
parties, for which Pima County has no legal authority to control.



Groundwater pumping or effluent discharges that increase, decrease, or
otherwise alter water quality or availability, except for groundwater pumping or
effluent discharges carried out by Pima County and having all required Federal
permits.



Actions reviewed under Section 7 of the ESA in the Planning Area, except for
those triggered by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for activities covered
under the permit.



Actions on lands conserved as Section 7 (ESA) mitigation.



Management, monitoring, or research within mitigation lands conducted by
entities other than Pima County or its cooperators.



The physical act of grazing, specifically trampling and herbivory, by livestock on
lands owned or leased by Pima County (see Section 3.4.1.4. for further
explanation).



County activities located on Federal or tribal lands.

22

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

3.5

Additional Benefits of Implementing the MSCP

Implementation of the MSCP would benefit Federal land managers, as well as
applicants for projects that have some sort of Federal nexus, even though these entities
would not be covered under the County’s permit. Specific benefits would include:


Potential for a reduced need to list additional species or designate Critical
Habitat(s) within the Planning Area, thereby potentially reducing the need for
additional Section 7 ESA consultations;



A well-defined regional, ecologically-based framework for meeting Section 7
requirements that facilitates a coordinated strategy in providing ecologically
meaningful mitigation; and



Opportunities to maximize the conservation benefits brought about by the Pima
County MSCP, including cross-jurisdictional collaboration in land conservation,
monitoring, and management efforts.

3.6

Projected Spatial Footprint of Covered Activities

The principal direct effect of Covered Activities is the loss of habitat for Covered
Species and the potential for those losses to effect populations of Covered Species. To
help ascertain the extent and location of direct impacts caused by Covered Activities
and to better quantify the County’s potential mitigation obligation, Pima County
developed a land absorption model (Appendix D) for three permit phases: Permit Phase
1 (Years 1-10), Permit Phase 2 (Years 11-20), and Permit Phase 3 (Years 21-30).
Growth projections for private-sector development within the Permit Area were
combined with the estimated footprint of covered County projects to develop the overall
projected spatial footprint of the proposed Covered Activities.
The land absorption model estimates that Covered Activities will impact 13,500 acres in
Permit Phase 1, 17,500 acres in Permit Phase 2, and 4,000 acres in Permit Phase 3.
Projected impacts for all three permit phases total approximately 35,000 acres (Table
3.2; Fig. 3.2). These impacts are anticipated to occur on approximately 24,000 acres
within the CLS and 11,000 acres outside of the CLS. Mitigation necessary to offset the
direct effects of Covered Activities is discussed in Chapter 4.

3.7

Effects of the Pima County MSCP on Covered Species: Habitat
Loss

3.7.1

Background Information on Calculating Habitat Loss

For the purposes of this MSCP, “take” is calculated based on the number of acres of
habitat lost for each Covered Species. Throughout the development of the SDCP and
the MSCP, habitat has been mapped and calculated in two ways: habitat modeling and
designation of Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs).

23

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Habitat models were developed by species experts during the development of the
SCDP and were based on broad-scale environmental features (e.g., hill slope, aspect,
major vegetation type, soils) that were believed to control the distribution of each Priority
Vulnerable Species at the landscape level (see Section 2.2.1). Using these habitat
models, habitat suitability for each species was mapped using GIS for the entire
geographic extent of Pima County, without regard to political boundaries. Habitat
suitability was generally represented in GIS as “high”, “medium” or “low.” These habitat
models advanced the state of knowledge for most Priority Vulnerable Species and were
critical components in creating the reserve design process that resulted in the CLS.
These models were developed for landscape-scale application and are not meant to
provide site-specific analysis of habitat take.
By contrast, PCAs reflect the opinions of local species experts. PCAs identify those
areas where land conservation activities, such as mitigation, should be prioritized to
ensure the conservation of Priority Vulnerable Species (Pima County 2001b). While
inexact and subject to periodic updates, PCAs are based on local knowledge and
incorporate concerns for habitat quality, threats, and species population distributions.
The justification for using PCAs over modeled habitat to determine species take is that
PCAs more closely represent the current and future habitat of Covered Species as
compared to modeled habitat. However, it is important to note that most PCAs
overestimate currently occupied habitat so that estimates of occupied habitat loss from
Covered Activities will be greater than actual occupied habitat loss. For example, the
PCA for the Chiricahua leopard frog in Pima County is >400,000 acres whereas the
species currently occurs in just a few, small and isolated sites that total <3,000 acres
within the County. For the purposes of this MSCP, Pima County will use PCAs to
calculate both take and mitigation for all but two species that do not have PCAs (the
Sonoran desert tortoise and Tumamoc globeberry). For these two species, the County
will use habitat models to calculate take and mitigation.
Table 3.2. Projected acres of impacts to the Maeveen Marie Behan Conservation
Land System (CLS) from Covered Activities in the Pima County MSCP Permit
Area.
Relationship to
CLS
Inside CLS

Impacts in Permit Phasea
CLS Category

I

Biological Core Management Area
Important Riparian Area
Multiple Use Management Area
Special Species Management Areab
Agricultural In-holdings
CLS Total

Outside CLS

II

Total
Impacts

III

5,094
588
5,667
67

3,299
786
6,378
111

378
760
509
113

8,771
2,134
12,554
291

0

0

1

1

11,415
2,060

10,575
6,901

1,762
2,375

23,752
11,336

Total (CLS Total + Outside CLS)
13,475
17,476
4,137
35,088
phases: I = Permit years 1-10; II = Permit years 11-20; III = Permit years 21-30.
b Special Species Management Areas can overlap other CLS categories; however, these impacts fall solely within areas having SSMA on top of
a Multiple Use, Agricultural or Outside of CLS designation.
a Permit

24

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Figure 3.2. Impacts that are projected to occur as a result of Covered Activities in the Permit Area. Projected
impacts are for analytical purposes and are not intended to be used for parcel-specific determination of permit
coverage. The location and rate of development are likely to change during the 30-year permit.

25

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

3.7.2

Take Calculations for the Pima County MSCP

As mentioned in the previous section, Pima County estimated habitat loss for Covered
Species relative to the impacts on the Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs) or modeled
habitat (high and medium quality; Table 3.3). Occurrences of the talus snail species are
too localized to model using GIS (see Appendix A).
Projected habitat loss ranged widely, depending on species. For a few species
(southwestern willow flycatcher, desert and Sonora suckers, and longfin dace), habitat
loss was quantified to be zero acres; while habitat loss for four species (Pima pineapple
cactus, Tumamoc globeberry, lesser long-nosed bat, and rufous-winged sparrow) was
quantified at over 15,000 acres for each species (Table 3.3). Appendix A provides
individual maps of projected habitat loss for each species and, where appropriate,
explains why take is anticipated for those species where no habitat loss is projected.

3.8

Indirect Effects of Covered Activities

Indirect effects to Covered Species are those that occur later in time from the immediate
undertaking of a Covered Activity, but are related to the Covered Activity’s direct effect
and are reasonably certain to occur. In general, habitat fragmentation and edge effects,
which can vary considerably in type and magnitude, are the most significant indirect
effects associated with Covered Activities. Other indirect effects to Covered Species
and natural resources include: increased illumination from streetlights leads to changes
in movement patterns and increased predation; greater potential for wildlife to be killed
by vehicles; modification of ambient noise levels; changes in water-use patterns;
exacerbation of air pollution; increased level of human activities (e.g., greater off-road
recreational use); greater access to previously less- or undisturbed areas; and
introduction of free-roaming/feral pets and invasive species into areas where they
previously did not occur. Indirect effects may be beneficial such as the foreseeable
improvement of effluent quality and diminution of effluent discharge at the Roger Road
Wastewater Treatment Facility along the Santa Cruz River.

3.9

Effects of the Pima County MSCP on Critical Habitat

Critical Habitat is currently designated for five species in Pima County and additional
Critical Habitat designations may be designated prior to permit issuance. This section
provides a narrative of the impacts that Pima County’s MSCP may have on designated
or proposed Critical Habitat for each relevant species.
3.9.1

Southwestern willow flycatcher

A portion of the southwestern willow flycatcher’s Critical Habitat occurs in northeastern
Pima County along the San Pedro River. The USFWS has proposed expanding the
Critical Habitat designation to include areas along Cienega Creek in the Las Cienegas
National Conservation Area that are upstream of Pima County’ Cienega Creek Natural
Preserve (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011a). Due to the location of the species’
Critical Habitat in a reserve

26

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Table 3.3. Acres of habitat loss projected to occur as a result of Covered
Activities within the Permit Area. Talus snails were not part of this analysis
because of their localized distribution. Habitat loss was calculated using Priority
Conservation Areas for all species except the Tumamoc globeberry and the
Sonoran desert tortoise, for which loss was calculated using modeled habitat
(see text for more information).
Species
Potential loss after 30 years
Pima pineapple cactus
18,963
Needle-spined pineapple cactus
852
Huachuca water umbel
364
Tumamoc globeberry
19,434
Mexican long-tongued bat
5,735
Western red bat
178
Southern yellow bat
48
Lesser long-nosed bat
15,978
California leaf-nosed bat
111
Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat
1,525
Merriam’s mouse
330
Burrowing owl
1,392
Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl
7,394
Rufous-winged sparrow
19,108
Swainson’s hawk
10,981
Western yellow-billed cuckoo
28
Southwestern willow flycatcher
0a
Abert’s towhee
554
Bell’s vireo
72
Longfin dace
0a
Desert sucker
0a
Sonora sucker
0a
Gila chub
0.1
Gila topminnow
0.5
Chiricahua leopard frog
2
Lowland leopard frog
7,145
Desert box turtle
748
Desert tortoise (Sonoran population)
9,473
Tucson shovel-nosed snake
63
Northern Mexican gartersnake
3,210
Giant spotted whiptail
4,355
Ground snake (valley form)
11
a No habitat take is anticipated but direct (i.e., lethal) take is possible.

or conservation area, there are no projected direct or indirect impacts on the species’
Critical Habitat as a result of the Covered Activities.
3.9.2

Jaguar

The USFWS proposed Critical Habitat for the jaguar on August 17, 2012 (U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2012b) . Of the approximately 820,000 acres as proposed Critical
Habitat in southern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico, about 150,000 acres are

27

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

located in Pima County consisting primarily of federal lands in the Baboquivari, Santa
Rita, and Whetstone mountains. Over 100,000 acres are in the MSCP Permit Area.
Approximately 265 acres of Critical Habitat are expected to be impacted by
development under the County’s permit. A final decision on the Critical Habitat
designation is not expected until 2013.
3.9.3

Mexican spotted owl

Critical Habitat for the Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) in Pima County is
primarily within the Coronado National Forest and Saguaro National Park (U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 2004). The Critical Habitat designation covers a small portion of
private lands in Pima County, including Summerhaven and a portion of the Tanque
Verde Valley. The Mexican spotted owl is not included as a Covered Species because
of the low probability that Covered Activities will result in take and the federal nexus that
exists for the County’s maintenance of the Mt. Lemmon Highway and wastewater
disposal activities near Summerhaven. The avoidance, minimization and mitigation
measures to be applied through the County’s Section 10 permit will contribute to
conservation of the Mexican spotted owl.
3.9.4

Desert pupfish

Critical Habitat for desert pupfish includes Quitobaquito Springs in Organ Pipe Cactus
National Monument and is far outside of the Permit Area (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1986). Conservation of this species’ Critical Habitat falls to the National Park Service.
3.9.5

Gila chub

Critical Habitat for the Gila chub was designated in several sections of watercourses in
Pima County: Sabino Canyon (Coronado National Forest), Cienega Creek (Pima
County owned lands, Las Cienegas National Conservation Area, and Arizona State
Land), and Mattie Canyon and Empire Gulch (Bureau of Land Management) (U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 2005). Conservation in these areas is achieved by Federal
agencies and, in the case of the County-owned portion of Cienega Creek Natural
Preserve, by the County’s implementation of the Cienega Creek Management Plan
(McGann and Associate Inc. 1994). Approximately 1 acre of Critical Habitat is expected
to be impacted by the Covered Activities (see also Appendix A).
3.9.6

Chiricahua leopard frog

In March 2011, the USFWS proposed Critical Habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog in
Arizona and New Mexico, of which 3,333 acres (30%) are in Pima County (U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 2011b). The two primary sites in Pima County included in the
proposed Critical Habitat designation are within the Buenos Aires National Wildlife
Refuge (1,721 acres) and Las Cienegas National Conservation Area (1,421 acres).
Final designation of critical habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog occurred on March
20, 2012 (77 FR 16324), and is essentially the same as the proposed designation.
Therefore, critical habitat is geographically beyond the limits of the Permit Area and

28

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

obligations under the Section 10 permit will not affect Critical Habitat for this species as
promulgated.

3.9.7

Huachuca water umbel

Critical Habitat for the Huachuca water umbel covers areas in Santa Cruz and Cochise
counties (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). No Critical Habitat occurs in Pima
County or the Permit Area; the County’s obligations under the Section 10 permit will not
affect Critical Habitat for this species.
3.9.8

Acuña cactus

The USFWS proposed Critical Habitat for the Acuña cactus on October 2, 2012 (U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 2012a). Approximately 40% of the 49,000 acres of proposed
Critical Habitat is in Pima County, and all of those acres are in the western portion of the
County. Approximately 1,000 acres of Critical Habitat is located within the MSCP
Permit Area, but most of those acres are owned by a mining company, and because
they are adjacent to an open-pit mine, the likelihood of a Covered Activity taking place
on these lands is extremely small. A vast majority of the remaining acres of Critical
Habitat acres that fall within the Permit Area are already developed. The County’s
Covered Activities are not anticipated to result in take of the species. A final decision on
the Critical Habitat designation is not expected until 2013.

29

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

4

AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, MITIGATION AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONSERVATION
PROGRAM

This chapter examines the measures that Pima County will employ to avoid, minimize,
and mitigate impacts to species and their habitats from two perspectives. The first is a
retrospective examination of those avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures
that the County has been implementing to support SDCP goals. Many of these
measures are long-standing aspects of the development process in Pima County and
have been in existence for well over a decade or more. The second presents those
more precise components of these avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures
that are being applied for purposes of SDCP implementation and which the County will
rely on for purposes of obtaining and complying with the terms of the Section 10 permit.

4.1

Avoidance and Minimization – SDCP Retrospective

Pima County’s SDCP conservation strategy operates at spatial scales ranging from the
regional landscape scale to the site-specific project scale and incorporates avoidance
and minimization as well as mitigation measures. At the landscape scale the CLS
map—by identifying those areas that are most suitable for development as well as those
areas where development is least desirable—is the County’s most definitive tool and is
used to direct development-related impacts away from sensitive resources. At the sitespecific, project scale, most projects (regardless of whether they are in or out of the
CLS) are subject to protocols or regulations that seek to avoid, minimize, or mitigate
impacts to on-site sensitive resources (e.g., floodplains, riparian areas, native
vegetation) as well as promote a project design that avoids and/or minimizes impacts to
off-site resources (e.g., surface and groundwater).
As part of the SDCP, a number of existing regulations or standards were modified to
improve species protections. Even before the SDCP, Pima County had developed and
honed a host of ordinances and other administrative tools to protect scenic beauty,
cultural resources, and wildlife habitat. A brief summary of all of these tools is found in
Appendix E. Pima County is providing this summary as evidence of the County’s
continued commitment to resource conservation. Continued implementation of certain
aspects of these commitments will specifically benefit Covered Species and their
habitats and Pima County will rely on these commitments to avoid and minimize future
impacts to Covered Species. These specific, permit-related avoidance and
minimization measures are described in Table 4.1.

30

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Table 4.1. Existing Pima County regulations and protocols that avoid and
minimize impacts to scenic, cultural, and wildlife resources. Pima County will
notify the USFWS if there are modifications to these regulations and protocols

MSCP Rationale
Supports control and
eradication of exotic,
invasive plant species.

Conserves riparian
resources and requires
mitigation for unavoidable
impacts.

Pima County
Controlling
Document
Pima County
Code Chapter
7.33 - Removal
of Rubbish,
Trash, Weeds,
Filth and Debris

Pima County
Code Chapter
16.33 Watercourse &
Riparian Habitat
Protection &
Mitigation
Requirements

Modifications that
Triggers Notification
(Changed
Circumstances)
Remove buffelgrass
from definition of 'weed'
Remove requirement
for property owners or
occupants to remove
buffelgrass from their
property and contiguous
areas.
Amend the entities
whose actions are
subject to this
regulation OR the types
of permits that are
subject to this
regulation

Amend the criteria used
to evaluate the
effectiveness of
mitigation.

Amend Riparian
Classification Maps

Minimizes alteration of
flow velocity in the
floodplain. Massive
changes in velocity can
adversely alter habitat
(bank stability, vegetation
density and types,
availability of water) for
many covered species

16.26 - Floodway
Fringe Area
Requirements

Weaken thresholds for
the one-tenth of a foot
base flood level; OR the
ten percent flood
velocity; OR one fps.

Minimizes alteration of
areas adjacent to
channel banks and
encourages leaving

Pima County
Code 16.28 Erosion Hazard
Areas and

Amend the default
setback distances from
major and minor
watercourses

31

Relevant Sections of Pima County Controlling Document
(Section/Chapter citations may change over time subsequent
to Document modifications.)
7.33.010.A.4. - "Weed" includes any species of plant that is
listed in Arizona Administrative Code R3-4-244, including
Pennisetum ciliare (L.) Buffelgrass (Ord. No. 2008-117, § 1
(part), 2009)
7.33.020 - Removal. The owner, lessee or occupant of
property shall remove all rubbish, trash, weeds, filth, debris,
and dilapidated buildings that constitute a hazard to public
health and safety from the property and contiguous areas.
(Ord. No. 2008-117, § 1 (part), 2009)
16.30.030 - Applicability. This chapter shall apply to all
properties within unincorporated Pima County that contain
riparian habitat, as delineated on riparian habitat maps
adopted by the board. This chapter shall apply to the county,
the district, and to all parties acting on behalf of the district and
county. This chapter shall apply to individual building permits,
including grading permits issued by the county, and land
development permits associated with subdivisions and
development plans. All requirements of this chapter shall apply
to regulated hydroriparian, mesoriparian, important riparian
areas, and, xeroriparian Classes A, B, C, and D habitat. (Ord.
2005 FC-2 § 2 (part), 2005; Ord. 1999 FC-1 § 1 (part), 1999;
Ord. 1998 FC-1 Section 3, 1998; Ord. 1994 FC-2 (part), 1994:
Ord. 1988 FC-2 Art. 10 (C), 1988)
16.30.060 - Review Process. The application and any
proposed mitigation plan shall be evaluated by the
effectiveness in: A. Avoiding the impact; B. Minimizing the
impact; C. Rectifying the impact; D. Reducing or eliminating
the impact over time; and E. Compensating for the impact.
(Ord. 2005 FC-2 § 2 (part), 2005; Ord. 1999-FC-1 § 1 (part)
1999; Ord. 1994 FC-2 (part), 1994: Ord. 1988 FC-2 Art. 10 (F),
1988)
16.30.080.A - Riparian classification maps shall be adopted by
resolution of the Board and shall detail on a parcel level, the
general location of riparian habitat and important riparian
areas subject to the requirements of this chapter. (Ord. 2010FC5 § 1 (part), 2010; Ord. 2005 FC-2 § 2 (part), 2005; Ord.
1999 FC-1 § 1 (part), 1999; Ord. 1995 FC-1 §§ 1, 2, 1995)
16.26.020 - Conditions applicable to all uses.
C. No encroachment may increase the base flood level more
than one-tenth of a foot or increase flood velocities more than
ten percent or one fps, whichever is less, at any property line,
except when it can be demonstrated that the postdevelopment velocity is not an erosive velocity. The velocity
subject to this standard may be the overbank velocity, the
channel velocity, or both, as appropriate based on the type of
development and its location within the floodplain.
(Ord. 2010-FC5 § 1 (part), 2010; Ord. 2005 FC-2 § 2 (part),
2005; Ord. 1999 FC-1 § 1 (part), 1999; Ord. 1988 FC-2 Art. 9
(B) (part), 1988)
16.28.020 - Setbacks near major watercourses.
B. Along natural channels where no unusual conditions exist
(such as a pronounced channel curvature), the default building
setback for erosion hazard protection shall be:

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

MSCP Rationale
banks natural, which
reduce impacts to habitat
for a variety of covered
species, including the
desert tortoise

Pima County
Controlling
Document
Building
Setbacks

Modifications that
Triggers Notification
(Changed
Circumstances)

Amend the default base
flood peak discharge
thresholds for major
and minor watercourses
OR amend the list of
major watercourses that
are identified by name.

Minimizes development
on slopes that provide
habitat for tortoise, talus
snails, and other covered
species.

Pima County
Code 18.61 Hillside
Development
Overlay Zone

Weaken the fifteen
percent minimum slope
that triggers compliance
with Chapter 18.61

Amend the types of
development that are
prohibited

32

Relevant Sections of Pima County Controlling Document
(Section/Chapter citations may change over time subsequent
to Document modifications.)
1. A distance of five hundred feet along the Santa Cruz River,
Rillito Creek, Pantano Wash, Tanque Verde Creek, San Pedro
River, and the Canada del Oro Wash;
2. A distance of two hundred fifty feet along major
watercourses with base flood peak discharges greater than ten
thousand cfs;
3. A distance of one hundred feet along all major watercourses
with base flood peak discharges of ten thousand cfs or less,
but more than five thousand cfs; and
4. A distance of seventy-five feet along all other major
watercourses with base flood peak discharges of five thousand
cfs or less, but more than or equal to two thousand cfs.
(Ord. 2010-FC5 § 1 (part), 2010; Ord. 2005 FC-2 § 2 (part),
2005; Ord. 1999 FC-1 § 1 (part), 1999; Ord. 1988 FC-2 Art. 12
(A), 1988).
16.28.030 - Setbacks from minor watercourses.
A. For minor natural washes with a base flood peak discharge
of less than two thousand cfs, the following building setbacks
shall be required:
1. A distance of fifty feet for watercourses with base flood peak
discharges of less than two thousand cfs, but more than five
hundred cfs;
2. A distance of twenty-five feet for watercourses with base
flood peak discharges of five hundred cfs to one hundred cfs;
3. Alternative safe limits for erosion setbacks approved in
writing by the chief engineer based on an acceptable
engineering study prepared and sealed by an Arizona
registered civil engineer. However, at no time shall a setback
of less than twenty-five feet from the top of channel bank be
permitted in order to provide for reasonable access and
stability of nearby structure foundations, except as allowed
pursuant to subsection B of this section.
(Ord. 2010-FC5 § 1 (part), 2010; Ord. 2005 FC-2 § 2 (part),
2005; Ord. 1999-FC-1 §§ 1 (part) 1999; Ord. 1988-FC2 Art. 12
(B), 1988)
18.61.030 - Applicability.
A. Applicable Lands.
1. This chapter applies to any land parcel, lot, or project site
containing slopes of fifteen percent (15%) or greater, which
are both longer than fifty feet (50′) when measured in any
horizontal direction and higher than seven and one-half feet
(7.5′) when measured vertically.
(Ord. 2003-17 § 1 (part), 2003; Ord. 2000-52 § 1 (part), 2000)
18.61.030 - Applicability.
B. Prohibited Development.
1. A rezoning to TR, RVC, CB1, CB2, CPI, CI1, CI2 or CI3
zone is not permitted on a land parcel, lot, or project site
having an average cross slope of fifteen percent (15%) or
greater.
2. Nonresidential conditional uses (refer to Chapter 18.97)
within a rural or residential zone are not permitted on land
parcels, lots or project sites having average cross slopes of
fifteen percent (15%) or greater.
3. A rezoning for residential uses with overall densities greater
than 1.20 residences per acre is not permitted on land parcels
with an average cross slope greater than fifteen percent (15%)
prior to the exclusion of any natural area.
(Ord. 2003-17 § 1 (part), 2003; Ord. 2000-52 § 1 (part), 2000)

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

MSCP Rationale

Encourages preservation
in-place and requires
mitigation for unavoidable
impacts. Directly
contributes to the
conservation of Covered
Plant Species (Pima
pineapple cactus, needlespined pineapple cactus,
and Huachuca water
umbel) and conserves
saguaro and ironwood
that are habitat
components for other
Covered Species
including cactus
ferruginous pygmy-owl,
Mexican long-tongued
bat, lesser long-nosed
bat, and rufous-winged
sparrow.

Pima County
Controlling
Document

Pima County
Code 18.72 Native Plant
Preservation
Ordinance

Modifications that
Triggers Notification
(Changed
Circumstances)
Amend the Average
Area (acres) per
Dwelling Unit (density)
for projects or parcels
with average cross
slopes of fifteen percent
or greater

Remove Pima
pineapple cactus,
needle-spined
pineapple cactus,
Huachuca water umbel,
saguaro, or ironwood
from list of species
regulated by 18.72
Amends the
applicability criteria

33

Relevant Sections of Pima County Controlling Document
(Section/Chapter citations may change over time subsequent
to Document modifications.)
Table 18.61.052-1
Average Cross Slope (%) / Average Area (acres) per
Dwelling Unit (density)
15
1.0
16
1.12
17
1.25
18
1.37
19
1.5
20
2.0
21
2.25
22
2.5
23
3.5
24
4.5
25
6.0
26
7.0
27
8.6
28
10.4
29
12.8
30
16.0
31
23.5
32
31.0
33 and greater
36.0
(Ord. 2001-22 § 2, 2001; Ord. 2000-52 § 1 (part), 2000)
Table 18.72.040-1: Protected Native Plants
Table 18.72.040-1B: Arizona Safeguarded Species
(Ord. 1998-39 § 1 (part), 1998)

18.72.050 - Applicability and Exceptions.
A. Applicability. Except as provided in paragraph B below, the
requirements of this chapter apply to all development for which
any of the following conditions apply:
1. On sites for which a grading plan is required or the total
area covered by all grading permits is fourteen thousand
(14,000) square feet or more;
2. On sites for which approval of a development plan or
subdivision plat is required and for which a tentative plat or
development plan is first submitted:
a. After the effective date of this chapter; or
b. Prior to the effective date of this chapter and for which a
final plat or development plan is not approved within one (1)
year of the effective date of this chapter.
3. On sites with a subdivision plat or development plan that
was approved more than one (1) year prior to the effective
date of this chapter and for which permitted on-site
infrastructure construction for at least one (1) of the following
major site improvement categories has not commenced prior
to the effective date of this chapter and has not been
completed within one (1) year of the effective date of this
chapter:
a. Mass grading and drainage improvements;
b. Water or sewer mains or treatment facilities; or
c. Major streets.
(Ord. 1998-39 § 1 (part), 1998)

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

MSCP Rationale

Used to determine the
mitigation ratio necessary
to off-set development
impacts and informs the
selection of mitigation
lands. It also yields
natural open space on
Private Property that will
be used for Mitigation
Land
Provides on-site
information for biological
resources that informs
configuration of highvalue natural open space
set-asides that may be
used as mitigation lands.
Natural open space that
conserves on-site
biological resources
benefits Covered Species
including cactus
ferruginous pygmy-owl,
Mexican long-tongued
bat, lesser long-nosed
bat, and rufous-winged
sparrow.

Pima County
Controlling
Document

Pima County
Comprehensive
Plan - Regional
Plan Policy 6B1 Environmental
Element

Pima County
Rezoning
Application and
Site Analysis
Requirements July 2, 1985 (as
amended March
16, 2010)

Modifications that
Triggers Notification
(Changed
Circumstances)
Amends mitigation
ratios for Pima
pineapple cactus,
needle-spined
pineapple cactus,
Huachuca water umbel,
saguaro, or ironwood
Amend the
Conservation Lands
System Policies or Map

Remove the
requirement to survey
for Pima pineapple
cactus when the project
site falls within Priority
Conservation Area for
this species.

Remove the
requirement to survey
for needle-spined
pineapple cactus when
the project site falls
within Priority
Conservation Area for
these 2 species.

34

Relevant Sections of Pima County Controlling Document
(Section/Chapter citations may change over time subsequent
to Document modifications.)
Table 18.72.090-1: Preservation Requirements & Preservation
Credits

Conservation Lands System Policies and Map as Adopted in
Resolution No. 2006-39

Site Analysis - Part 1: Site Inventory. I-D.
3. If all or a portion of the site falls within the Priority
Conservation Area for the Pima pineapple cactus, as
displayed on Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP)
MapGuide, conduct a survey for that species. Staff will allow
this information to be carried over for future Native Plant
Preservation Plan submittals for up to five years provided that
the survey shall be conducted by an entity qualified to perform
biological surveys, and performed according to the most
recent protocol approved by the US Fish & Wildlife Service.
The property owner may request an extension of the five-year
time limit at the time of a request for a time extension of the
approved rezoning. The property owner must provide written
justification for the extension with the application for the time
extension and the Planning Director or his/her designee will
review the request on a case-by-case basis at the time of
application for a time extension. Existing survey data can be
used provided that the surveys were conducted no more than
one year prior to the initial submittal of the rezoning
application. Summarize survey results and map approximate
locations of any Pima pineapple cactus found. (If cacti are
found, as a courtesy, please provide this information to the
Arizona Game & Fish Department’s Heritage Data
Management System.)
Site Analysis - Part 1: Site Inventory. I-D.
4. If all or a portion of the site falls within the Priority
Conservation Area for the needle-spined pineapple cactus, as
displayed on Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP)
MapGuide, conduct a survey for that species. Staff will allow
this information to be carried over for future Native Plant
Preservation Plan submittals for up to five years provided that
the survey shall be conducted by an entity qualified to perform
biological surveys. The property owner may request an
extension of the five-year time limit at the time of a request for
a time extension of the approved rezoning. The property
owner must provide written justification for the extension with
the application for the time extension and staff will review the
request on a case-by-case basis at the time of application for a
time extension. Existing survey data can be used provided that
the surveys were conducted no more than one year prior to
the initial submittal of the rezoning application. Summarize

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

MSCP Rationale

Pima County
Controlling
Document

Modifications that
Triggers Notification
(Changed
Circumstances)

Remove the
requirement to
inventory or sample
survey for saguaro and
ironwood

Amend the list of
hydrological
characteristics that
must be mapped

Provides an opportunity
for public to comment on
roadway projects before
the course of action has
been decided. Ensures
mitigation measures for
environmentally sensitive
areas are addresses for
major roadway projects.

Pima County
Code 10.56 Community
Participation and
Mitigation

Amend the definition of
'Major Projects' or alter
applicability of 10.56 to
Major Projects

35

Relevant Sections of Pima County Controlling Document
(Section/Chapter citations may change over time subsequent
to Document modifications.)
survey results and map approximate locations of any needlespined pineapple cactus found. (If cacti are found, as a
courtesy, please provide this information to the Arizona Game
& Fish Department’s Heritage Data Management System.)
Site Analysis - Part 1: Site Inventory. I-D.
7. Inventory and map all saguaros (grouped into two size
classes: ≤6 feet and >6 feet tall) and ironwood trees that occur
on site, if any. Sampling may be appropriate for certain
properties, pending staff approval. Staff will allow an inventory
(not a sampling) of individual ironwood trees and saguaros to
be carried over for future Native Plant Preservation Plan
submittals for up to five years. The property owner may
request an extension of the five-year time limit at the time of a
request for a time extension of the approved rezoning. The
property owner must provide written justification for the
extension with the application for the time extension and staff
will review the request on a case-by-case basis at the time of
application for a time extension.
Site Analysis - Part 1: Site Inventory. I-C.
4. Describe and map the characteristics of the on-site
hydrology. Include all of the following, if applicable:
a. 100-year floodplains with a discharge greater than or
equal to 100 cfs, with justification for these delineations;
b. Sheet-flooding areas with their average depths;
c. Federally-mapped floodways and floodplains;
d. Peak discharges both entering and leaving the site for
100-year events which exceed 100 cfs, with justification for the
values provided.
e. All mapped, regulated riparian habitat classifications
adopted by the 2005 Floodplain and Erosion Hazard
Management Ordinance amendment; and provide acreages.
f. Existing drainage infrastructure (i.e. culverts, basins, etc).
g. Any lakes, ponds, wetlands, springs, or other source(s) of
perennial surface water.
h. Erosion hazard setbacks, as required by the Floodplain
and Erosion Hazard Management Ordinance; also include a
description of the methodology used to determine them, and
provide the data in an appendix.
10.56.020 - Applicability.
A. Major projects. This chapter shall apply to proposed major
roadway projects, including environmentally sensitive roadway
projects, constructed by Pima County. This chapter shall be a
policy statement and guide for proposed major roadway
improvement projects and environmentally sensitive roadway
projects constructed jointly by Pima County and other
agencies or jurisdictions. For purposes of this chapter, the
term "major roadway" means a roadway depicted on the Pima
County Major Streets and Scenic Routes Plan and which is
classified and functions as an arterial roadway. The term
"environmentally sensitive roadway" refers to a transportation
project within or crossing environmentally sensitive lands as
determined by certain Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan
conservation land system categories and/or designation as a
Scenic and/or Historic Route, and/or location within or crossing
a High or Moderate Archaeological Sensitivity Zone or a
Priority Cultural Resource, as described in the Pima County
Roadway Design Manual.
(Ord. 2006-31 § 1 (part), 2006; Ord. 1992-69 § 2, 1992)

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

MSCP Rationale

Pima County
Controlling
Document

Modifications that
Triggers Notification
(Changed
Circumstances)
Remove the
requirement that
Environmental Effects
be considered for each
project.
Remove the
requirement to identify
potential adverse
environmental impacts
of proposed project and
to provide
recommendations for
mitigation measures
that would minimize
adverse impacts.
Amend the requirement
for mitigation to include
measures that avoid the
impact, minimize the
impact, rectify the
impact, reduce the
impact, or compensate
for the impact.

Amend the list of
environmental
mitigation measures
that are to be
implemented for each
major roadway project
covered by 10.56.

36

Relevant Sections of Pima County Controlling Document
(Section/Chapter citations may change over time subsequent
to Document modifications.)
10.56.030 - General considerations.
A. Environmental Effects. Effects of the proposed project on
the environment, including but not limited to noise, air quality
and wildlife.
(Ord. 2006-31 § 1 (part), 2006; Ord. 1992-69 § 3, 1992)
10.56.070 - Environmental assessment and mitigation report.
B. The environmental assessment and mitigation report shall
identify adverse impacts of the proposed project and shall
provide recommendations for mitigation measures which may
be undertaken to minimize the adverse impacts. The
environmental assessment and mitigation report shall contain
the information specified in the Pima County Roadway Design
Manual.
(Ord. 2006-31 § 1 (part), 2006; Ord. 1992-69 § 4.4, 1992)
10.56.240 - Mitigation measures. General and specific impact
mitigation measures as approved by the Board of Supervisors
as a result of the public hearing on the environmental
assessment and mitigation report shall be utilized to mitigate
adverse impacts of each major roadway project. Mitigation
includes measures to (1) avoid the impact altogether by not
taking a certain action or selected elements of a proposed
action, (2) minimize impacts by limiting the degree or
magnitude of the action and its implementation, (3) rectify the
impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the affected
environment, (4) reduce or eliminate the impact over time by
preservation and maintenance activities during the life of the
action, or (5) compensate for the impact by replacing or
providing substitute resources or environments. The following
mitigation measures shall be implemented for each major
roadway project covered by this chapter:(Ord. 2006-31 § 1
(part), 2006; Ord. 1992-69 § 7.1, 1992)
10.56.240 - Mitigation measures.
A. Environmental.
1. Preservation of Environmentally or Ecologically Sensitive
Areas. Where possible, the location of major roadway projects
shall avoid areas of significant environmental and ecological
sensitivity. Where major roadway projects are adjacent to
areas of unique environmental or ecological sensitivity,
acquisition in fee simple, acquisition of development rights, or
conservation easements may be proposed by the appropriate
environmental assessment and mitigation report (see Item 5
below for additional requirements).
2. Landscaping. All medians and right-of-way areas on major
roadway projects shall be landscaped with drought-resistant,
low pollinating, preferably native plants. Plant species shall be
listed as permissible pursuant to the landscaping requirements
of the Pima County zoning code. The landscaping theme of
each major roadway project shall be compatible with the native
landscape through which the roadway passes. Installation of
landscaping shall begin not later than six months after the
formal completion date of the roadway project.
3. Dust Abatement. Curbs or paved roadway shoulders shall
be provided adjacent to through traffic lanes to minimize air
borne dust generated by vehicular traffic.
4. Scenic Route Designations. A visual impact analysis shall
be included in any environmental assessment and mitigation
report prepared for improvements on major roadway projects

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

MSCP Rationale

The ESR Design
Guidelines provide
roadway design
specifications that will
minimize or mitigate
impacts to
environmentally sensitive
lands.

Minimizes impacts to
washes and undisturbed
areas due to placement
of sewers

4.2

Pima County
Controlling
Document

Chapter 4 - Pima
County
Department of
Transportation
Roadway Design
Manual, 3rd
Edition

Standard Detail
WWM A-3 in
Chapter 9,
Gravity Sewer
Design
Standards,
Section 9.1.1.

Modifications that
Triggers Notification
(Changed
Circumstances)

Amend the definition of
an Environmentally
Sensitive Roadway
Amend the process to
identify biological
resources and evaluate
the impacts from
proposed roadway
projects
Modification of
treatments/mitigation
Options to be
considered if impacts to
Biological Resources
within Environmentally
Sensitive Roadway can
not be avoided
Modify the list of plant
species that are to be
inventoried within the
project area to be
disturbed
Modify the mitigation
requirements for trees
and saguaros
Modify part 9.1.1. of the
standards, or modify
Standard Detail WWM
A-3 to eliminate or
reduce the avoidance of
washes or wash
environments or
avoidance of areas
undisturbed by
development.

Relevant Sections of Pima County Controlling Document
(Section/Chapter citations may change over time subsequent
to Document modifications.)
designated as scenic routes.
5. Environmentally Sensitive Roadways. Roadways are
defined as Environmentally Sensitive Roadways (ESR) if they
are located within or cross (a) unique ecologically or culturally
sensitive lands as determined by the Sonoran Desert
Conservation Plan, (b) High or Moderate Archaeological
Sensitivity Zones or Priority Cultural Resources, or (c) if the
roadways are identified as Historic or Scenic Routes. Projects
that are defined as ESR shall be designed and constructed to
minimize disturbance to the area resources. Additional
environmental resource assessment and mitigation
procedures are required as defined in the Pima County
Roadway Design Manual.
Section 4.2 - Environmentally Sensitive Lands and Roadway
Designation
Section 4.4 - Biological Resource Process

Section 4.7 - Mitigation Tools; Biological Resource
Conservation Treatments/Mitigation Options

July 6, 2010 Update to Appendix 4D - Step 1. B.

July 6, 2010 Update to Appendix 4D - Step 1. C. & D.
Detail No. WWM A-3 and Section 9.1.1. The location of
sewers in the following areas/circumstances shall be avoided
unless specific approval is obtained from Pima County
Wastewater Management on case-by-case basis: 1) across,
through and between lots; 2) within or along a wash or wash
environment; 3) crossing a wash outside of a road Right of
Way; 4) within a common area; 5) within areas undisturbed by
development.
http://www.pima.gov/wwm/eng/stddet/pdf/wwma3.pdf

Avoidance and Minimization – Permit Compliance

Potential modifications of the ordinances, guidelines, and protocols (measures) listed in
Table 4.1 will trigger Pima County’s obligation to consult with the Service prior to
executing the contemplated modification to ensure that these measures will continue to
contribute to impact avoidance and minimization to Covered Species from covered

37

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

activities as outlined for Section 10 permit issuance. The Service will have the
opportunity to comment on the potential of the proposed changes to adversely affect
specific Section 10 Permit provisions that provide for species’ protection. The County,
as the deciding authority, will have the Service’s opinion in-hand prior to making a final
decision about whether to execute the proposed modification. The Service will be
required to provide comment on any such proposed modification within 45 calendar
days.
Above and beyond those avoidance and minimization elements listed in Table 4.1,
County departments will also be provided with information on sensitive areas, including,
but not limited to, known nesting and roost sites of Covered Species prior to their
initiation of construction and maintenance activities. In the case of Covered bat species
that may be particularly sensitive to disturbance at roost sites under bridges, Pima
County Department of Transportation will be informed of known roost locations in
addition to being provided with information on appropriate timing of maintenance
activities to avoid disturbance, especially during the breeding season.
The Pima County Office of Sustainability and Conservation will be responsible for
keeping County departments informed about—and engaged in—permit obligations.
Pima County will create an internal committee of representatives from Pima County
departments responsible for implementing the permit; the Office of Sustainability and
Conservation will chair this committee. A primary focus of this committee will be to
refine protocols to account for habitat loss and lethal take and coordinate minimization,
management and monitoring activities.
4.2.1

Avoidance and Minimization: Indirect Effects

Section 3.8 highlights a number of indirect effects that are likely to result from the
Covered Activities. Many of these indirect effects, especially where they occur on
privately-owned property, are individually and collectively minimized with the County’s
continuing implementation of conservation measures listed in Table 4.1. On County
mitigation lands, minimizing indirect effects will be accomplished through management
actions and guidelines, as outlined in Chapter 5.

4.3

Mitigation Tools

Mitigation is the primary mechanism Pima County will employ to address impacts from
the Covered Activities. In anticipation of the Section 10 permit, Pima County has been
acquiring lands that will be used to mitigate the impacts of Covered Activities (Countycontrolled mitigation lands; see glossary for complete definition). To set target
mitigation requirements, Pima County proposes two complementary accounting tools
that replicate the “fine” and “coarse” filter approach that was fundamental to the
development of the SDCP. The coarse filter is landscape-focused and provides a
program designed to mitigate for impacts to habitat of Covered Species and it also
creates benefits for species and ecosystem processes not addressed by the permit.
This landscape-level tool makes significant use of the CLS and builds synergy with
other County endeavors to implement the SDCP. The second tool is an assessment

38

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

that Pima County will use to guide the construction of the mitigation lands network with
the objective of providing a quantifiable level of conservation for each of the Covered
Species. This fine filter tool employs an acre-for-acre accounting strategy where the
intent is to maintain at least one acre of conservation for each acre lost to the Covered
Activities.
4.3.1

Land Acquisition in the Conservation Lands System and Outside of Pima
County

Pima County will acquire, protect, manage, and monitor approximately 116,000 acres
as mitigation to offset impacts from Covered Activities that occur over the life of the
permit (Table 4.2). Appling the landscape-level mitigation tool, mitigation for Covered
Activities will be calculated based on the projected acres of impact and its location
relative to the CLS. Below are the mitigation ratios that will be used to determine the
amount of mitigation acreage required to satisfy the Section 10 permit (acres
conserved:acres impacted; see additional details in Appendix F):


Biological Core Management Area = 5:1;



Important Riparian Area = 5:1;



Special Species Management Area = 5:1;



Multiple Use Management Area = 3:1;



Agricultural In-holding = 2:1;



Outside of the CLS = 2:1.

Assuming that development proceeds at the projected pace and location, MSCP
implementation will be phased to provide for appropriate interim milestones: protection
of approximately 50,000 acres of land during Permit Phase I; 54,000 acres during
Permit Phase II, and 13,000 acres during Permit Phase III (Table 4.2). A vast majority
of these acres will be within the CLS, but mitigation credit will also be claimed for lands
outside of the County, which are (by default) outside of the CLS. In some instances
where a species-specific mitigation need exists, the County may secure lands outside
the CLS. For example, Pima County may elect to acquire non-CLS lands for the
benefit of the Pima pineapple cactus.
Based on previous affirmation from the USFWS, Pima County has, over the last several
years, been actively acquiring a land portfolio to rely upon as mitigation for impacts
resulting from Covered Activities (Table 4.3; Fig. 4.1). In this fashion, the County has
secured mitigation lands prior to impacts and permit issuance. This arrangement
created a financial incentive for the County to acquire land at a lower value and (most
importantly) the purchase of large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped land that would
likely not be available in the future because of the pace of development in the area.

39

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Table 4.2. Acres of mitigation that are anticipated to be needed for Pima County
to fulfill the mitigation obligations of the Section 10 permit. Mitigation is based
on projected impacts (Table 3.2) and corresponding MSCP mitigation ratios.
Mitigation Needed in Permit
Phase
Relationship to
CLS Category
I
II
III
CLS
Inside CLS
Biological Core Management Area
25,471
16,495
1,892
Important Riparian Area
2,941
3,932
3,799
Multiple Use Management Area
17,000
19,133
1,528
Special Species Management Areaa
333
557
567
Agricultural In-holdings
0
0
2
CLS Total
45,744
40,118
7,788
Outside CLS
2:1
4,119
13,802
4,750
Total (CLS Total + Outside CLS)
49,863
53,920
12,538
a SSMA acres shown here supersede CLS categories with lower MSCP mitigation ratios, such Multiple Use or Outside CLS.
MSCP
Mitigation
Ratio
5:1
5:1
3:1
5:1
2:1

Total
Mitigation
43,857
10,672
37,661
1,456
2
93,649
22,671
116,320

Taking into account the 25% mitigation credit for State Trust Land agreed to by the
USFWS (see section 4.4; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2012d), Pima County has
already acquired over 106,000 acres with which to mitigate future impacts (Fig. 4.1,
Table 4.3, Appendix G). This represents 91% of the mitigation projected to be needed
over the 30-year permit (see Table 3.2). Based on where impacts are likely to occur
relative to the CLS, mitigation will be provided according to the ratios reported in Table
4.2. Based on the current projected footprint of Covered Activities, Pima County’s
Table 4.3. Acres of potential mitigation credit that Pima County has already
acquired for the Section 10 permit, as it relates to the CLS and State Trust lands.
Mitigation acres are “adjusted” because Pima County will receive at least 25%
mitigation credit for State Trust Lands (see section 4.4). Table 4.4 relates how
these potential mitigation acres accomplish the target 1:1 acreage conservation
for each Covered Species. Figures exclude potential mitigation lands that may
result from those developments that Opt-In to the County’s Section 10 permit.
CLS
Location
Inside

25% Credit for
State Lands
12,333
715
7,071
8,295
0
28,413
81
2,729
31,223

Total
Mitigation
to Datea
44,351
11,980
11,410
33,348
17
101,106
987
4,299
106,392

CLS category
Fee Title
State Lease
Biological Core
32,018
49,331
Important Riparian Area
11,265
2,859
Special Species Management Areab
4,339
28,284
Multiple Use Management Area
25,053
33,179
Agricultural
17
0
CLS Totals
72,693
113,653
Outside
Outside CLS
906
324
Outside of Pima Countyc
1,570
10,915
Total (CLS Total + Outside CLS + Outside Pima County)
75,169
124,892
a Fee-title acres plus 25% credit for State Trust Lands.
b Acres shown here supersede all CLS categories with lower MSCP mitigation ratios, such Multiple Use or Outside CLS.
c Lands outside of Pima County include lands associated with the A7 Ranch (168 acres of fee title lands and 9,630 acres of lease lands),
Tortolita Mountain Park (796 acres of fee title lands) and 722 acres of fee title lands that are expected to be acquired from the BLM through the
Recreation and Public Purposes Act.

40

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Figure 4.1. Fee and lease land acquired by Pima County for mitigation of activities covered under the Section 10
Permit. Includes about 2,000 acres of proposed Recreation and Public Purposes Act patents and near-term
donations. Additional mitigation lands are likely to be acquired in the future.

41

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

existing land portfolio will be sufficient for all mitigation needs except for those needed
to off-set impacts within Multiple Use Management Areas. Because of the lower
biological value and mitigation ratio of the Multiple Use Management Areas, Agriculture,
and Outside CLS categories, Pima County will—where feasible—seek mitigation acres
in higher-value CLS categories (Biological Core, Important Riparian Areas, and Special
Species Management Areas).
4.3.2

Ranching and the CLS Mitigation Strategy

Pima County views ranch conservation as the key mechanism to preserve what remains
of Pima County’s last undeveloped and otherwise unprotected natural landscapes. This
conservation approach was endorsed by the SDCP Steering Committee, the STAT, and
the Ranch Conservation Technical Advisory Committee (Pima County 2000b).
Ranching in its current, low intensity form is consistent with the conservation goals of
the MSCP through:


Landscape and watershed protection by maintaining an unfragmented
ecosystem with developed roads and other infrastructure;



Providing connectivity across valleys to adjacent, higher elevation habitat blocks,
thereby providing conservation of communities ranging from valley bottoms to
mountain tops;



Bringing together private, state, and Federal land units into unified, large
management units that make management activities more uniform and efficient;
Defining the metropolitan and rural interface, thereby maintaining a more
compact urban form.

4.3.3

Mitigation Equivalency Analysis for Individual Species

The PCAs and modeled habitat for each Covered Species is not equally distributed
across Pima County’s proposed mitigation lands. However, mitigation will be
appropriately located with respect to habitat such that a minimum equivalency
conservation ratio (acres of habitat loss: acres of mitigation) of 1:1 can be achieved.
While the number of acres of mitigation needed will be calculated based on the location
of impacts relative to the CLS, Pima County performed an analysis of habitat
equivalence in support of the MSCP. This analysis suggests that, based on the current
set of County-controlled mitigation lands and the agreed upon 25% mitigation credit for
managing State Trust lands, Pima County has achieved this ratio for all but the Pima
pineapple cactus, though even this species is very close to 1:1 equivalency (Table 4.4).
The equivalency analysis demonstrates Pima County’s CLS approach can offset acres
impacted by Covered Activities with similar habitat acres within respective PCAs or
modeled habitat. To ensure that CLS mitigation stays ahead of impacts for all Covered
Species, Pima County will undertake a species-by-species analysis of impacts as part
of each 10-year program review. The objective is to maintain a minimum of 1:1
mitigation for each Covered Species.

42

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Table 4.4). Habitat mitigation acquired to date for the Covered Species based on
the current suite of mitigation lands. A mitigation to habitat-loss ratio of >1
indicates that more acres of habitat are expected to be conserved over the 30year permit period than are projected to be lost to Covered Activities. Mitigation
acres listed here do not include (1) future acquisitions or natural open-space set
asides by the private sector and (2) lands outside of Pima County that are owned
or leased by the County; these will add additional mitigation acres for most
species. PCA and modeled habitat do not currently extend outside of Pima
County.
Current Mitigation to Anticipated
Pima County Mitigation (acres)
Loss
Projected
25% credit
Loss after
Total
Fee
for State
30 years
Achieved to
Difference
Ratio
Speciesa
Title
land
(acres)b
Date
(acres)
(Mitigation:Loss)
Pima pineapple cactus
18,963
8,943
9,945
18,888
-75
1
Needle-spined pineapple cactus
852
5,866
2,788
8,655
7,803
10
Huachuca water umbel
364
3,885
171
4,056
3,692
11
Tumamoc globeberry
19,434
13,055
8,065
21,120
1,686
1
Mexican long-tongued bat
5,735
37,124
11,975
49,099
43,363
9
Western red bat
178
17,818
3,032
20,849
20,672
>100
Southern yellow bat
48
11,941
823
12,765
12,7167
>100
Lesser long-nosed bat
15,978
56,565
26,540
83,105
67,127
5
California leaf-nosed bat
111
9,619
2,583
12,202
12,091
>100
Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat
1,525
18,994
7,180
26,173
24,650
17
Merriam’s mouse
330
8,190
197
8,387
8,057
25
Burrowing owl
1,392
2,879
0
2,879
1,487
2
Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl
7,394
27,561
13,771
41,332
33,938
6
Rufous-winged sparrow
19,108
25,602
11,063
36,665
17,557
2
Swainson’s hawk
10,981
30,774
15,551
46,325
35,344
4
Western yellow-billed cuckoo
28
8,621
1,026
9,647
9,619
>100
Southwestern willow flycatcher
0
314
0
314
314
>100
Abert’s towhee
554
9,817
368
10,184
9,63
18
Bell’s vireo
72
7,521
502
8,023
7,951
>100
Longfin dace
0
4,556
312
4,868
4,868
>100
Desert sucker
0
99
0
99
99
>100
Sonora sucker
0
50
0
50
50
>100
Gila chub
0.1
3,411
122
3,533
3,533
>100
Gila topminnow
0.5
4,161
319
4,480
4,476
>100
Chiricahua leopard frog
2
10,175
3,296
13,471
13,471
>100
Lowland leopard frog
7,145
31,239
12,175
43,414
36,270
6
Desert box turtle
748
5,496
20
5,516
4,768
7
Desert tortoise (Sonoran)
9,473
37,059
13,761
50,820
41,347
5
Tucson shovel-nosed snake
63
1,275
0
1,275
1,213
20
Northern Mexican gartersnake
3,210
10,367
464
10,831
7,621
3
Giant spotted whiptail
4,355
10,311
1,132
11,443
7,088
3
Ground snake (valley form)
11
915
0
915
904
82
a Talus snails were excluded from this analysis because no modeled habitat was expected to be impacted.
b See Table 3.3.

43

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

4.3.4

Water Rights Acquired on Mitigation Lands

Pima County will acquire groundwater and surface-water rights principally through the
acquisition of mitigation lands. Pima County has and will continue to acquire, manage,
monitor, and protect water rights and water resources in advance of the need to mitigate
for the impact of Covered Activities. The goal of Pima County’s water rights
management is stated in the Sustainable Action Plan for County Operations, Board
Resolution 2007-84 which states the goal of “maximizing County water resource assets,
including Groundwater Rights, Surface Water Rights and production and use of
effluent/reclaimed water to sustain and protect the County’s natural environment.”
At present, there are few restrictions regarding the County’s future uses of water on
mitigation lands, other than those specified in the respective water right(s).
Management agreements between Pima County and tenant ranchers restrict the
permitted uses of water on County-controlled lands to the amount required to operate
the cattle ranching operation on the property, and provide for restrictions of potable use
should the water exceed state standards (Appendix H).
Specific commitments of water or water rights as mitigation under the Section 10 permit
will be made in reciprocal conservation easements for County-controlled mitigation
lands (Appendix I). The easement will limit the County’s future uses of surface water,
groundwater and water rights associated with the Mitigation Land. The conservation
easement template for private ranch lands (Appendix J) contains similar limitations,
which would apply and do apply for those voluntarily granted conservation easements
located on private ranch lands. Initially, specific commitments of water rights will be
limited to those specified as above, however the County may choose to commit
additional water or water rights as mitigation through permit amendments or measures
to address Changed Circumstances.

4.4

Calculating Credit for Mitigation Lands

Pima County proposes an incentive-based approach to gaining mitigation credit from
mitigation lands through the implementation of a hierarchical stewardship level program
(Table 4.5). Under this program, the amount of mitigation credit on a parcel is adjusted
as successive stewardship levels are reached, as established by defined benchmarks
or thresholds. Under the proposed framework, varying amounts of mitigation credit
would be available depending upon the level of protection, monitoring, and
management that Pima County provides on land to be used as Mitigation Land. Pima
County will claim partial credit where Mitigation Land is established on (1) State Trust
lands leased by Pima County; and (2) CLS-designated natural open space set-asides
that result from rezoning a property or issuance of a conditional use permit (type II or
III). In either of these circumstances, the decision to initiate pursuit of mitigation credit
above the baseline percentage of credit will be at the discretion of Pima County.
4.4.1

State Trust Ranch Lands Leased by Pima County

Pima County will receive a minimum of 25% mitigation credit for all State Trust
properties held under a grazing lease (Table 4.5). This credit allocation is based on

44

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Table 4.5. Stewardship levels (SL) for the three types of mitigation lands to be
used in the Pima County Section 10 permit.
Ownership Type
SL
1

Mitigation
Credit (%)
25

2

50

3

75

4

100

Pima County Feetitle lands

Fee title with
conservation
easement, which is
conveyed to
approved entity, or
reversionary clause.

County Leased Lands
Hold grazing lease and ensure compliance
with terms of management agreement (if
any). If grazing lease is held for <30 years,
credit is pro-rated.
Develop specific and measureable
conditions goals AND monitoring data
indicate that conditions goals have been met
or exceeded

Acquisition of leased lands in fee title with
appropriate conservation easements.
Grazing continues if it is deemed compatible
with achieving and maintaining resource
condition goals.

Lands within Private Developments

CLS-designated natural open space
set-aside is legally described and is
permanently protected from
development via legal instrument
separate from plat or development
plan. County monitors to ensure that
no development occurs.
County receives rights that allow
enhanced conservation and
augmented monitoring and
management.

management of these lease lands to improve resource conditions. These
improvements include improved grazing management as outlined in Pima County’s
Range Management Standards and Guidelines (Appendix C) and Ranch Management
Agreements (Appendix H). Mitigation credit may increase to 50% on lease lands if
certain conditions are met, especially where established condition goals (see section
4.4.3) are met or exceeded. Full credit (100%) would be possible should the County
obtain fee ownership of such lease lands and place them under perpetual protection. If
the County loses a grazing lease on State Trust land that is designated as Mitigation
Land, the County will be obligated to replace it with other lands that meet or exceed the
mitigation credit generated by the lost lease lands.
4.4.2

Natural Open Space Set-Asides Established to Achieve Compliance with
the CLS

For those residential subdivisions and non-residential developments that were required
by Pima County to set-aside natural open space to achieve compliance with the CLS,
and where the project is granted coverage under the Opt-in Provisions (as described in
Section 3.3.1.1), the County will claim a minimum of 75% mitigation credit for purposes
of the Section 10 permit. This credit allocation is based on Pima County’s commitment
to conserve these lands in perpetuity in a natural condition providing habitat value and
permeability to Covered Species. In addition, Pima County commits to monitoring these
set-aside lands at a level that will detect significant encroachment or changes so that
remedies can be applied to maintain mitigation values. Should the County receive

45

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

sufficient rights on these lands (e.g., fee-title ownership; legally-specified granting of
rights) that enable the County to enhance conservation and augment monitoring and
management activities, mitigation credit could be increased to 100% if the County
desires and USFWS determines it is appropriate.
In rare cases where there is evidence that a Changed Circumstance has compromised
a Mitigation Land property, Pima County will first attempt to rectify the cause or source
of the changed circumstance. If the source or cause of the problem is not identifiable or
if the remedy is not feasible or practicable, Pima County will substitute these acres with
land that has a conservation value that meets or exceeds that of the compromised
Mitigation Land, as necessary, to maintain the appropriate ratio of Mitigation Land to
lands impacted by Covered Activities. When such circumstances are encountered, the
County will coordinate a resolution with the USFWS. Examples of these types of
circumstances include Mitigation Land that is condemned for a utility right-of-way; the
loss of Mitigation Lands through the County’s involuntary loss of a grazing lease; or
unauthorized development within CLS-compliant natural open space set-asides
designated as Mitigation Land.
4.4.3

Evaluating Changes in Stewardship Level on State Lands

Determining when a parcel warrants a change in stewardship level status will be critical
to the success of this incentive-based effort. In the case where a State Trust parcel
held under lease by the County is elevated from level 1 to 2, Pima County will employ a
defensible and transparent process, one that will be carried out by an independent
advisory committee of scientists. Members of this committee will be experts in the
appropriate field and they will establish criteria for determining success in coordination
with the USFWS; only those geographic areas that met the criteria would be awarded
credit. Pima County will employ a STAT-like committee of independent scientific
advisors. The makeup of the committee as well as the specific condition objectives will
be developed in consultation with USFWS staff. The USFWS will need to be satisfied
with the process prior to agreeing to grant additional mitigation credit.
Criteria and thresholds for success will vary by the type of project, but will be based on
the best available science. Improvements in rangeland conditions will likely focus on a
combination of standard rangeland measures (e.g., grass cover) and wildlife habitat
measures. Determining success of species enhancement activities will vary depending
on the projects, whereby some projects would use the presence or abundance of a
Covered Species, while other projects such as wildlife crossings might use a reduction
of roadkill as a measure of success. These standards will be developed in coordination
with the USFWS.
4.4.4

Evaluating Changes in Stewardship Level on Mitigation Land Within
Private Development

Under those circumstances where the County wishes to pursue mitigation credit above
the 75% baseline for Mitigation Land within a private development, the County will work
with the USFWS to delineate the full scope of the property rights the County will hold, as

46

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

well as a detailed explanation of monitoring and management obligations. Pima County
and the USFWS will mutually determine whether 100% mitigation credit will be applied.
4.4.5

Establishing Mitigation Credit for Species Enhancements

Mitigation credit for fee title, State Trust lands, and land within private developments is
relatively straightforward because it is based on an acre-by-acre calculation. More
difficult to quantify are those actions that lead to conservation of Covered Species, but
that may be greater than their immediate area of impact. These conservation measures
are known as species enhancements. Species enhancements have benefits that are
greater or different than their spatial footprint and are typically more expensive to
implement. As such, they are typically over and above what is required in HCP
management and mitigation. Examples include:


Construction of wildlife crossing structures to improve connectivity among
populations;



Establishment of additional populations or occupied locations of Covered
Species;



Restoration of special elements, especially riparian and aquatic;



Non-native species removal and control efforts that are above and beyond
those required in the MSCP, as well as efforts that take place outside of
mitigation lands;



Technology transfer and/or labor to neighboring land owners for Covered
Species restoration effort.

Pima County will work with the USFWS to determine, on a case-by-case basis,
appropriate mitigation credit for these projects. Pima County and the USFWS will likely
seek input from subject matter experts to assist in the evaluation of proposed species’
enhancements. In some instances, and for a variety of reasons, species’
enhancements may only be temporary. In these cases, species occupancy may be
allowed to be taken back to a previously agreed upon baseline condition. Take of
species related to a return to baseline is covered under the Section 10 permit.
Mitigation credit for such temporary enhancements will be adjusted accordingly.

4.5

Implementation of the Mitigation Program

Mitigation represents the most significant conservation element of the Pima County
MSCP; it is intended to secure and maintain sufficient lands to offset impacts associated
with Covered Activities in a manner that conforms to the Service’s criteria. These
criteria require that Pima County:


Possess an ownership or management interest in the mitigation property;



Exercise legal protection over the mitigation property;



Manage the mitigation property to retain the biological and species habitat
values; and

47

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft



Monitor the mitigation property to ensure that biological and species habitat
values persist over time.

Mitigation lands will receive full or partial mitigation credit based on the degree to which
the above criteria are met. The nature of Pima County’s ownership on any given
mitigation property pre-determines the tools Pima County will use to meet the remaining
criteria. To that end, acquisition of fee-title lands (including appurtenant water rights
when possible) and acquisition of partial interests in real property such as leases and
receipt of conservation easements are—and will continue to be—the primary
conservation tools for assembling Mitigation Lands for the Section 10 permit.
As noted earlier, Pima County has secured a significant down payment on the full
amount of mitigation anticipated to mitigate the impacts of Covered Activities:
approximately 75,000 acres of fee-simple lands and approximately 125,000 acres of
lease lands. Pima County intends to obtain additional lands in the future through
purchase (i.e., fee simple or acquisition through the Recreation and Public Purposes
Act), lease, or receipt of a property right(s). Pima County also intends, when the
opportunity exists, to acquire fee title to State Trust land and combine the acquired land
with the associated fee-title lands to create contiguous blocks of land ownership.
Potential mitigation lands include properties outside the CLS in adjacent counties,
where Pima County may acquire land in fee or hold State grazing leases (see footnote
in Table 4.3 for more information on these lands). The mitigation credit for these lands
will be determined by Pima County at the time when credit is sought, by considering the
same factors used in developing the CLS.
4.5.1

Options for Obtaining Mitigation Lands

4.5.1.1 Fee-simple Acquisition
The most direct option for satisfying the County’s mitigation needs is for Pima County to
obtain lands in fee simple, including the acquisition of associated water and mineral
rights, whenever possible. Fee simple maximizes Pima County’s control over those
activities that will occur on a property and leaves the County as the sole determinant of
management and monitoring activities. Although Pima County may acquire fee simple
lands anywhere within or in the immediate vicinity of Pima County, the Habitat
Protection Priorities of the 2004 Conservation Bond program (and future iterations)
guided implementation of the County’s land acquisition program. In order to ensure
conservation of Covered Species and Special Elements and perpetuate a viable reserve
design, acquisitions are most likely to focus on a subset of approximately 525,000 acres
of biologically significant parcels of land defined as Habitat Protection Priorities
(Appendix K). The District also acquires floodprone lands that may have biological
values. To commit acquired lands to MSCP mitigation, the County or District will, for
permit mitigation purposes, ensure the long-term conservation of fee simple lands by
grant of a conservation easement (see section 4.5.1.2).
Pima County also intends to utilize the Recreation and Public Purposes Act (RPPA) to
acquire certain tracts of land currently owned by the U. S. Bureau of Land Management

48

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

(BLM). Currently, most County RPPA applications pertain to properties either adjacent
to Tucson Mountain Park or near to Tortolita Mountain Park. If Pima County acquires
patents from BLM conveying ownership to Pima County, Pima County would commit the
use of the undeveloped lands identified on Figure 4.1 to biological conservation under
the MSCP. These lands are not part of the BLM’s National Landscape Conservation
System and have been identified for disposal by BLM. Conservation values of these
RPPA-patented lands will be legally protected via a reversionary clause which will revert
ownership to the BLM if the lands should ever be used for purposes other than
recreational open space. Pima County will claim full credit for protecting, managing and
monitoring the identified RPPA-patented lands in accordance with the guidelines of the
MSCP.
4.5.1.2 Conservation Easements on Pima County’s Fee-simple Lands
Conservation easements or other legally enforceable instruments will be used to
provide assurances to the USFWS that the biological values of County-owned fee
simple mitigation lands will be maintained in perpetuity. Because a conservation
easement grants specified rights to another party and is a legally enforceable
agreement that can be used to restrict certain activities on properties subject to the
easement, County-owned mitigation lands will be placed under a conservation
easement where restrictions on its use will support and maintain the conservation
values of the property.
Although throughout the rest of this document, Pima County and the Regional Flood
Control District (RFCD) are called “County”, they are actually two separate entities and
are co-applicants to the permit. As allowed by state statute, Pima County or the RFCD
can execute a conservation easement in one of three ways:


As a grantor (party who grants the easement); or



As grantee (party who accepts the easement), or



As a third party beneficiary (named party that, along with the grantee, benefits
from the easement).

Pima County currently owns most of the fee-simple lands that would be subject to
conveyance of conservation easements under this MSCP. For these lands, Pima
County will be the grantor and the RFCD will be the grantee. Conversely, Pima County
will be the grantee for those lands that the RFCD owns. For those mitigation lands
where Pima County or the RFCD, as the grantor, conveys a conservation easement, a
third party beneficiary will be designated; first preference will be to designate an entity
such as the USFWS, or the AGFD whose persistence over time is not questionable.
This additional layer of protection provides the USFWS with an assurance that
biological values on County-owned fee-simple mitigation lands will be maintained over
time. As grantee, Pima County or the RFCD will acquire and extinguish development
rights to the Mitigation Land, as well as other rights, to protect the site’s conservation
values (see prohibited activities, Appendix L).
The timing of recordation of these conservation easements will usually be in the year
prior to impacts. In this way, the Applicants intend to stay ahead of covered impacts.

49

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Because acres of impacts—and therefore mitigation requirements—are not known
precisely each year, Pima County will complete a full review of the acres and location of
conservation easements at each 10-year review period, or more frequently if this
information becomes available. Pima County will be responsible for identifying the
appropriate parcels to receive conservation easements and coordinate with the
appropriate County and District entities to develop an executable conservation
easement for presentation to the Board. A draft conservation easement for use on
County or District lands is provided in Appendix I. Following Board approval, Pima
County Real Property will record the easements.
Pima County may, from time to time, utilize portions of County-owned lands for
stewardship activities intended to offset impacts to Waters of the US under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) requires mitigation
sites to be permanently protected through an appropriate legal instrument. In these
cases, the Corps could receive the conservation easement on the qualifying portion of
mitigation land used as a 404 mitigation bank or in-lieu fee project. The conservation
easement to the Corps would allow for restoration and stewardship of biological values,
similar to the draft conservation easement in Appendix I, but would conform with the
particular requirements of the 2008 regulations for Compensatory Mitigation For Losses
of Aquatic Resources (33 CFR Parts 325 and 332). Such easement would be an
alternative way to provide the permanent protection sought for lands committed as
mitigation under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act. Land acquisition and
conservation easements required by the Corps’ for mitigating the impacts to Waters of
the US would be timed so as to precede any claim for mitigation value for lands that
provide habitat for endangered species under this MSCP.
4.5.1.3 Partial Interest: Conservation Easements on Private Ranch Property
The 2004 Conservation Bond Program stipulated that conservation easements are the
preferred means of protecting conservation values on private lands. It further stated
that landowner participation in a conservation easement will be entirely voluntary, which
is also an existing mandate in state statute (A.R.S. 33-272). Accordingly, Pima County
holds conservation easements on several parcels where ranchers chose to retain
certain private property rights, generally in the vicinity of the ranch headquarters.
Conservation easements of this kind are tailored to the property it covers in order to
best conserve on-site resources and meet the seller’s needs.
Pima County has developed a conservation easement template (Appendix J) that is
used to guide the development of conservation easements on private ranch land. This
template will continue to be used where private ranchers are willing to voluntarily grant
the County a conservation easement on their private ranch land. Appendix L is a list of
typical permitted and prohibited actions for use in preparing such conservation
easements. Permitted and prohibited activities have been tiered to the type of lands
(e.g., habitat protection versus community open space) acquired under the 2004
Conservation Bond Program. In those cases where Pima County intends to purchase a
conservation easement on fee-simple lands from another entity, Pima County will do so
with fair market compensation for such interest, as determined by a valid appraisal.

50

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

4.5.1.4 Partial Interest: State Trust Grazing Leases
Pima County leases land owned by the State of Arizona for grazing purposes. This is
one of the most important tools for providing mitigation lands and for maintaining
support of the SDCP’s ranch conservation element (Pima County 2000c). In such lease
situations, the County’s fee-simple ranch property anchors the grazing lease and allows
the County to manage vast acreages owned in Trust by the State. As a result, these
leased lands play an integral role in the County’s ability to promote and foster an
unfragmented landscape-scale ecosystem which is a critical underpinning of this MSCP.
The lease period for State lands is 10 years with renewal options. A number of
situations may arise whereby leases are either lost or land under lease is lost. Reasons
for this could include: 1) Pima County terminates the lease, or 2) the Arizona State Land
Department does not renew Pima County’s lease. In any of these changed
circumstances, mitigation credit for those acres will be debited from the total acres of
mitigation lands. To comply with its mitigation obligations, Pima County may need to
acquire additional mitigation lands as a result of the loss of state leases.
4.5.1.5 Life Estates and Other Devices
Pima County may also take advantage of other tools to obtain a controlling interest over
lands with valuable conservation assets. These may include—but are not limited to—
life estates and reverter clauses or other conditional fee interests. Pima County shall
evaluate the appropriateness of using such tools on a case-by-case basis with the
primary evaluation criteria being whether such interests assure Pima County that the
parcel’s conservation values will be protected. Prior to requesting mitigation credit for
lands to which one of these legal instruments applies, Pima County will coordinate with
the USFWS to evaluate the potential mitigation credit for each acquisition.
4.5.1.6 Donations of Property Interests
Pima County may also choose to accept property interests—ranging from fee simple to
partial interest—that are donated by property owners. Pima County shall evaluate such
proffered donations for the properties’ natural resource values, CLS status, contribution
to Pima County MSCP goals, and long-term costs of management and monitoring.
Pima County may, at its discretion, request a monetary donation or endowment from the
beneficiary to cover management costs. Prior to requesting mitigation credit for lands to
which one of these legal instruments applies, Pima County will coordinate with the
USFWS to evaluate the potential mitigation credit for each acquisition.
4.5.1.7 Open-Space Set Asides Established to Achieve Compliance with the CLS
For the purposes of this MSCP, natural open-space set-aside requirements that the
Board of Supervisors imposes on a property to achieve compliance with the CLS will be
included as Mitigation Land when the property owner elects to Opt-In to the County’s
Section 10 permit. Responsibilities for protecting the undeveloped, open-space
character of the mitigation lands will—unless other suitable arrangements are made—
fall to the property owner(s) with oversight and enforcement by Pima County. A legallyenforceable instrument separate from the plat or development plan will be required to

51

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

permanently ensure that such Mitigation Lands persist in perpetuity and that they
remain as undeveloped, natural open space. Credit for these mitigation lands will be
claimed at a minimum of 75%. However, under circumstances where there is greater
control granted to Pima County to enhance conservation and augment management
and monitoring, the County may request an increase in mitigation credit.
4.5.2

Fees for Receipt of Coverage under Pima County’s Permit

Any fee(s) that a private property owner may be assessed in return for receiving
coverage under the County’s Section 10 permit would be predicated on the County’s
authority to assess a ‘fee for service’ as allowed under Arizona Revised Statutes §11–
251.08. The fee structure is comprised of two components: 1) an Application Fee and
2) a Compliance Monitoring Fee. Payment would be a one-time occurrence and is a
pre-requisite to receiving permit coverage.
The Application Fee is based on the County’s investment of resources necessary to
process and issue Section 10 permit coverage to development activities on private
property. The Compliance Monitoring Fee is based on the County’s investment of
resources necessary to fulfill the long-term obligation to monitor and maintain those
lands reserved as mitigation land in an undeveloped, natural state. A Compliance
Monitoring Fee will only be assessed where lands are being reserved as mitigation
lands. As noted in Chapter 6, monitoring of on-site, set-aside lands will not entail onthe-ground activities, but will focus on application of remote sensing data to determine if
encroachment or land clearing has taken place.
Current cost estimates indicate that the cost to obtain coverage for any single
development would be no more than $3,000 (in 2012 dollars) to process. Pima County
will periodically evaluate the fee structure components, including fee amounts, and may
revise the maximum fee to reflect the then-current investment of resources necessary to
provide Section 10 permit coverage to privately developed property, in conformance
with ARS §11–251.08.

4.6

Regulatory Standards and Relationship to Recovery

Section 10(a)(2)(B) of the ESA identifies Permit Issuance Criteria that must be met
before the USFWS can issue a Section 10 permit. Most importantly, the proposed
taking can not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species
in the wild. Specifically, ESA Section 7 regulations (50 CFR § 402.02), define the
phrase “jeopardize the continued existence of” as “to engage in an action that
reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood
of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the
reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species.”
4.6.1

Recovery: Mandate vs. Enhancement

One of the issuance criteria for a section 10 incidental take permit is that the authorized
taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the Covered

52

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Species in the wild. The ESA does not explicitly require the Pima County MSCP to
recover species or contribute to the objectives identified by adopted Recovery Plans,
and the USFWS must not only consider the extent of impacts to covered species and
their habitats, but also the extent to which the Pima County MSCP is likely to enhance
the habitat of the Covered Species or increase the long-term survivability of the species
or their habitat. Mechanisms to address this issue have been built into the MSCP
planning process. Mitigation measures outlined in this MSCP will benefit the
conservation of listed species in the region. In particular, the mitigation credit structure
provides incentives for measures that will contribute toward improvement of habitat
conditions and potential for re-establishment of extirpated populations.
4.6.1.1 Recovery Plans and Goals
Some of the Pima County MSCP Covered Species have a Recovery Plan (draft or
final):


Lesser long-nosed bat



Southwestern willow flycatcher



Desert pupfish



Gila topminnow



Chiricahua leopard frog

Recovery Plans for these species have been used as the basis for identifying
minimization and mitigation measures for information on appropriate management
strategies, and for identifying monitoring needs and protocols. In the absence of other
information approved by the USFWS, final or draft Recovery Plans will continue to
constitute the “best available science” for a species. The USFWS have indicated they
will develop a “Recovery Outline” for the jaguar while a full Recovery Plan is being
finalized.

4.7

Conservation and Recovery of Aquatic and Riparian Species

4.7.1

Species Enhancement Areas

Pima County will develop a Riparian and Aquatic Species Management Plan within
three years after permit issuance. The AGFD and USFWS may assist with this effort,
the intent of which will be to contribute to full occupancy of available appropriate habitat
within the County’s preserve system by covered fishes, leopard frogs, the Huachuca
water umbel, and the Northern Mexican gartersnake. The implementation of this plan
will focus on developing, modifying, or affirming appropriate site-specific goals and
objectives based the appropriateness of a site to host specific Covered Species and
often to the benefit of other species as well.
The Riparian and Aquatic Species Management Plan will include ideas for gathering
data and/or conserving Covered Species and their habitats on properties in proximity to
County owned and leased lands, where such an approach to broader-scale

53

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

conservation is in cooperation with the respective land owner or land manager,
including Tribal interests. Mitigation credit for these conservation actions will be sought
by Pima County, and the amount of credit will be negotiated with the USFWS on a caseby-case basis.
Within County owned and leased lands, Pima County will designate potential habitat
according to its relative importance or appropriateness for reintroductions. These sites
will be known as Species Enhancement Areas, which will have three tiers:
Tier I: These are places where existing and/or re-established populations will be
managed by Pima County with assurances that all reasonable efforts will be made to
ensure that the population contributes to recovery of the species. Those properties
where Pima County has sufficient control to guarantee water quantity and quality
adequate to support such populations will be eligible for Tier I designation. Examples of
these could include the Cienega Creek Natural Preserve and certain Pima Countyowned lands at springs. Pima County will ensure that employees and/or other scientists
involved in species re-establishment efforts for these areas have the requisite Section
10(a)(1)(A) Recovery Permits, appropriate State permits, and that activities be
coordinated with the AGFD and USFWS.
Tier II. These are sites where Pima County management efforts will provide suitable
habitat and improve habitat conditions for existing or re-established populations and at
the same time allow permitted maintenance and other Covered Activities. Tier II areas
would be designated by Pima County at the time of permit approval and their
management would be the responsibility of Pima County. Maintenance, construction,
management, or other activities that may decrease habitat values will be preceded by
efforts to salvage aquatic vertebrates and other riparian species with the intent of
translocating them to nearby suitable locations. Examples of Tier II areas could include
sites such as the Kino Ecosystem Restoration Project at the Ajo Detention Basin, Agua
Caliente Park, and Pima County-owned lands along the Santa Cruz River. Species will
be returned to the original locations once adequately supportive habitat conditions are
established.
Tier III. These are sites where there is suitable habitat for native fish and/or amphibians
(though populations are expendable from species recovery efforts), but that have the
potential to contribute to recovery. Such areas may include ponds on Pima County
lands where native fish and frogs are grown for public distribution; and private ponds,
including golf course water features, for which landowners request assistance in efforts
to replace non-native with native species. Recovery efforts may use sites that are
temporary, artificial, heavily managed, and/or impacted. These population reestablishment activities would be conducted with concurrence and appropriate permits,
and Pima County may use existing Safe Harbor Agreements (e.g., Chiricahua leopard
frog).
In some instances, and for a variety of reasons, species’ introductions or translocations
may only be temporary. In these cases, species occupancy may be allowed to be taken
back to a previously agreed upon baseline condition. Take of species related to a

54

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

return to baseline is covered under the Section 10 permit. Mitigation credit for such
temporary enhancements will be adjusted accordingly. In addition, reintroduced or
translocated populations may move or expand into adjacent areas of suitable habitat.
Pima County may issue Certificates of Inclusion to neighboring landowners potentially
affected by species reintroductions or translocations as described above. In this case,
section 10 coverage for take of covered species is granted to these landowners via the
Certificate of Inclusion, provided the neighboring landowners meet the requirements for
receiving a Certificate of Inclusion.

4.8

Additional Implementation Elements

4.8.1

Migratory Birds and Eagles

The issuance of Pima County’s Section 10 permit, in association with the Pima County
MSCP, also constitutes a Special Purpose Permit under 50 CFR 21.27 for the take of
ESA listed birds in the amount and/or number and subject to the terms and conditions
specified herein. Any such take will not be in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C 703-712). Unlisted birds that are covered by the HCP
are not covered by the Special Purpose Permit and may be taken only if such take is
not in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This Special Purpose Permit will be
obtained through the Migratory Bird Office after an initial 3-year period from the effective
date of the Section 10 permit. The Special Purpose Permit will be renewed, provided
that Pima County continues to fulfill its obligations under the permit and its associated
Implementation Agreement. Each automatic renewal will be valid for the maximum time
period allowed by 50 CFR 21.27 or its successor at the time of renewal.
4.8.2

Unlisted Species

Assurances will be given for those species that are adequately covered by the MSCP,
pursuant to the HCP Assurances (i.e., “No Surprises”; ‘No Surprises Policy’ [63 FR
8859 February 23, 1998, revised 50 CFR 17]) provided the MSCP is being properly
implemented. Implicit in this is that 1) the MSCP must address the conservation of the
species and its habitat, and 2) all Section 10 issuance criteria specified in the Act and its
implementation regulations must be met. If a species is added to the list of endangered
species and that species is not covered under the Section 10permit, Pima County will
work with the USFWS to determine if inclusion onto the permit is warranted (see Table
7.1 for more information). Such an inclusion would require a permit amendment.
4.8.3

Plants in the MSCP and Permit

The Federal take prohibitions under the ESA for listed plants on non-Federal lands are
limited, unless taking of those plants is in violation of State law or regulations or in the
course of any violation of a State criminal trespass law. However, before the USFWS
issues a Section 10 permit, the effects of the permit on listed plants must be analyzed.
This is because Section 7 of the ESA requires that any Federal action—in this case
issuance of a Section 10 permit—must not jeopardize any listed species, including
plants.

55

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

The USFWS encourages applicants to consider listed plants in their respective
conservation plans and this has been addressed in the County’s MSCP as part of the
overall ecosystem approach adopted by Pima County and recommended by STAT; four
species of plants are proposed for coverage under this Section 10 Permit (Table 2.3).
Two of these species are listed as endangered under the ESA and one is a candidate
for listing. All covered plant species are protected under the Arizona Native Plant Law
as “highly safeguarded” (i.e., no collection is allowed) or “salvage restricted” (i.e.,
collection is allowed only with permit.)

4.9

Permit Phasing

Phasing of the Pima County MSCP is necessary to provide a long-term, temporally
comparable program to secure mitigation in a manner that parallels the projection of
future growth (Appendix D). This phasing strategy creates benchmarks to monitor the
plan’s implementation and effectiveness, but it is not the same as permit renewal or a
permit amendment. The proposed duration of the permit will be 30 years, which is
subdivided into three, 10-year phases. Prior to the end of each Permit Phase, Pima
County will initiate an analysis of the biological effectiveness of the conservation and
mitigation actions implemented to date under the Permit. This analysis will be subject to
peer review.
4.9.1

Permit Phase I: Years 1-10

This permit phase will include the initial “down payment” of mitigation lands on the
County’s anticipated mitigation requirements. Land and property rights acquired by
Pima County since 1999, as previously agreed upon with the USFWS, will be eligible for
use as mitigation lands subject to the accrual of impacts from Covered Activities and the
corresponding need to mitigate as described in section 4.4. Lands owned by Pima
County prior to 1999, and for which Pima County commits to mitigation, will be credited
towards meeting goals and mitigation requirements based on the evaluation criteria
outlined in Section 4.4. Monitoring will be initiated as outlined in Section 6.
4.9.2

Permit Phase II: Years 11-20

During this permit phase, Pima County will pursue additional land acquisition, if
necessary. This effort will be informed by the results of the species habitat take that
occurred in Permit Phase I. Ongoing monitoring and adaptive management activities
will be implemented and reported.
4.9.3

Permit Phase III: Years 21-30

During this permit phase Pima County will continue to fund MSCP implementation.
Pima County will also continue to acquire or otherwise secure mitigation lands at a level
necessary to meet or exceed mitigation requirements for the projected growth in the
third decade. Lands and property rights acquired by Pima County during previous
Permit Phases that have not already been used to meet mitigation requirements will be
credited towards meeting the goals and mitigation requirements of Permit Phase III, as

56

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

appropriate. At the conclusion of the Permit Phase III, Pima County will evaluate the
need to extend or renew the incidental take permit, including any adjustments or
amendments to the permit or MSCP.

4.10

Amendments

Amendments to the Pima County MSCP may be sought based on the terms of the final
Implementation Agreement (Appendix M). Amendments may be either major or minor,
as determined by the Implementation Agreement and suggested below. Minor
amendments will be handled administratively. Major amendments generally relate to
situations where a significant change is made to a fundamental aspect of the permit,
such as an expansion of Covered Activities or adding to the list of Covered Species.
Major amendments will require amending the permit and will involve a full public review
process. Procedurally, a permit amendment application is treated in the same way as
the original permit application. However, documentation required by USFWS in support
of a proposed amendment will vary depending on the nature of the amendment and the
content of the original Pima County MSCP documents. In general, if the circumstances
necessitating the amendment have been addressed in the original documents, then only
amendment of the permit itself will be needed. If the amendment involves an action that
was not addressed in the original documents, Implementing Agreement, or National
Environmental Policy Act analysis, these documents may need to be revised or new
versions prepared addressing the proposed amendment(s).
Major amendments might include:


Extension of the Section 10 Permit Area to cover additional incidental take;



Additional Covered Species;



Additional Covered Activities.



Changes in conservation or mitigation measures for Covered Species as
agreed upon by both parties;

57

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

5

LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

This chapter outlines the ongoing and proposed land and resource management
programs and tools that contribute to fulfillment of MSCP goals and objectives. Over
time, many of the management activities highlighted in this chapter will be informed by
the monitoring and adaptive management program (Chapter 6). Management actions
highlighted in this chapter include the set of activities that are currently committed or are
anticipated to be used on County-controlled mitigation lands, as well as those that
prohibit certain uses on those lands (Appendix L). In this way, management refers to
those activities that take place after the acquisition or lease of specific properties to
ensure that the biological values for which they were acquired are being maintained
and/or enhanced over time.
In order to assure that the goals of the Pima County MSCP are realized, land and
resource management will:


Work toward long-term viability and sustainability of native ecosystem structure
and function and natural processes in the County-controlled mitigation lands;



Protect biological resources within County-controlled mitigation lands from
threats and other disturbance activities, while also accommodating compatible
public uses;



Enhance and restore conservation targets in appropriate locations to improve
habitat for Covered Species and other species of interest;



Respond to monitoring information in a timely manner and use adaptive
management, where and when such an approach is warranted.

To achieve these objectives, Pima County will implement the following management
approaches, which directly address those significant threats for which Pima County has
some ability to control. Approaches will be implemented by the appropriate Pima
County department.

5.1

Land Management Approaches and Guidelines for Mitigation
Lands

5.1.1

Invasive Species

Invasive species represent an important challenge affecting many Covered Species and
their habitats and, therefore, the control and/or removal of select invasive species is a
priority activity for ensuring the success of the MSCP. Toward this end, the Pima
County Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution 2005-265 which directs the County to
address and mitigate for the continuing spread and potential introduction of invasive
species by establishing the Pima County Invasive Species Working Group. In
compliance with the Board’s directive, staff is currently participating in multi-jurisdictional
invasive species groups, providing public outreach on invasive species, and
implementing targeted control and eradication of invasive species on County-owned

58

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

lands. This program will continue to evolve through collaboration with other on-going
regional, multi-agency efforts. Elements of the program will be incorporated into all
management plans developed by Pima County and will be addressed in propertyspecific conservation easements.
The most pressing invasive species management issue in Pima County is buffelgrass
and the County’s response to this species demonstrates its commitment to invasive
species management, in general. Pima County Natural Resources, Parks and
Recreation Department is an important partner with the inter-agency Buffelgrass Work
Group to coordinate mapping, control, and eradication efforts. In 2008 the group
completed a 5-year Southern Arizona Buffelgrass Strategic Plan to facilitate buffelgrass
management throughout the region (Rogstad 2008). More recently, the County is
working with utilities that operate within County-owned rights-of-way to ensure that the
utilities address buffelgrass control issues.
5.1.2

Management Guidelines for Riparian Systems

The STAT prioritized protecting existing self-sustaining riparian and aquatic ecosystems
over the creation of new or enhanced areas of riparian and aquatic life that depend on
continuing inputs of water, energy and materials. Below are prioritized guidelines
adopted by STAT that will be used in management activities related to water:
1. Protect systems that are self-sustaining over those that need continual inputs;
2. Restore or enhance native riparian and aquatic ecosystems by releasing water to
restore local aquifer conditions;
3. Sites which augment existing high-quality riparian areas are favored;
4. Enhance the ability of secondary effluent or reclaimed water to support aquatic
life;
5. Manage riparian and aquatic ecosystems for native species.
6. If plantings are to be used:

5.1.3



Revegetation is favored in areas where perpetual irrigation will not be needed;



Conflicts with other public health and safety objectives (e.g. fire, flood, crime,
aircraft safety, and disease) should be minimized before proceeding with these
projects;



Native species appropriate to the site must be used.
Restoration and Enhancement

The goals of the MSCP cannot be achieved through protection and mitigation activities
alone. This is because past land- and water-use decisions have resulted in the
degradation or elimination of significant resources throughout Pima County. In addition,
future climate change predictions forecast a hotter, drier environment, which will put

59

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

further stress on resources key to many Covered Species. Therefore, to achieve MSCP
goals and ensure the persistence of many Covered Species in Pima County, ecological
restoration is necessary to improve selected site-specific conditions.
5.1.3.1 Riparian and Aquatic Restoration
Riparian and aquatic restoration will focus on repairing degraded riparian areas and
aquatic features, both in and out of major drainage systems and by enhancing
protection and connectivity of the remaining riparian and aquatic fragments along their
tributaries. Towards this end, Pima County has completed a number of riparian
restoration projects such as the relocation and removal of houses and other residential
uses along upper Canada del Oro Wash, restoration at Bingham Cienega and the
Cortaro Mesquite Bosque project and has participated in numerous agreements with U.
S. Army Corps of Engineers, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Partner for Wildlife
Program, State of Arizona, and others that will have long-term positive effects on
aquatic and riparian habitat and watercourse functions. These activities are expected to
improve conditions for aquatic and riparian species and therefore reduce the need for
future listings.
Some riparian restoration projects require a supplemental water source (e.g., effluent
and reclaimed water) to re-establish the types of facultative or obligate riparian
vegetation plant communities that once occurred on the site. Pima County currently
allocates County-owned effluent to riparian restoration projects. Additional effluent is
allocated through the Conservation Effluent Pool (Pool) whereby up to 10,000 acre-feet
of treated effluent water per year are made available for riparian projects from
metropolitan area wastewater treatment facilities. Projects having USFWS approval of
a Section 10 permit will gain preferential access to the Pool.
Riparian projects that would use the Pool are not anticipated to be used as mitigation
during Permit Phase I. Based on the later success of these projects, Pima County may
seek mitigation credits. If the project funding is interjurisdictional, then Pima County will
work with the USFWS to find an equitable method for dividing those credits.
As mentioned under Covered Activities, Pima County may establish sites for offsetting
of impacts to Waters of the US on portions of Mitigation Lands degraded by historic
land-use activities such as farming. The activities on these sites would focus on
repairing degraded riparian and aquatic features, while conforming with the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers requirements for mitigation. Mitigation fees paid by public or private
sector pursuant to the Section 404 Clean Water Act would be used for stewardship
activities such as fencing, erosion treatments, and re-establishment of natural cover.
Such Corps mitigation activities would not count as Section 10 mitigation, though the
CLS mitigation value of the underlying land could be used to offset CLS impacts
elsewhere.
5.1.3.2 Upland Restoration
Some upland areas on potential mitigation lands are in poor ecological condition as a
result of past land-use actions such as improper road construction, overgrazing, fire

60

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

suppression (in areas of historical fire presence), etc. Problem conditions include
erosion, shrub invasion, and presence of invasive species. Upland restoration efforts
will focus on halting or reversing the degradation to natural resources. Projects will
include road restoration and closures, and preventing soil loss through use of
appropriate materials and design and maintenance methods. Though Pima County
cannot commit to a comprehensive upland restoration program, site-specific projects
have already begun on many areas within potential mitigation lands; Pima County
anticipates that these projects will continue during the implementation of the MSCP.
5.1.4

Public Access, Trails, and Recreation

Some County-controlled mitigation lands preclude or otherwise limit public access
because of the sensitive nature of the resources or underlying property rights asserted
by others. However, most properties have some level of recreational access.
Recreation on lands leased for grazing by Pima County is primarily regulated by the
State of Arizona (through the AGFD and State Land Department) or the Bureau of Land
Management. For County-owned mitigation lands, Pima County will seek to minimize
impacts from County recreation projects by formalizing consideration of the following
measures:


Conducting biological assessments for all land disturbance projects;



Locating trails and other infrastructure (overlooks, parking areas, picnic areas)
in areas that will cause the least impact to soils, vegetation, and other sensitive
environmental elements. Where possible trails will be located along existing
dirt roads;



Providing sufficient signage to clearly identify public access points and
appropriate types of allowable activities;



Erecting barriers (e.g., vegetation, rocks/boulders or fencing) to protect
sensitive areas or to block access for off-road vehicles;



When possible, use natural materials in the construction and maintenance of
trails;



Providing trail repair/maintenance to correct effects of trail erosion;



Restoring disturbed areas;



Minimizing trail widths to reduce impacts to important resources;



Minimize trail densities to reduce impacts to native biota;



Providing trail fences or other barriers at strategic locations when protection of
sensitive resources is required;



Prohibiting off-road use of motor vehicles except for law enforcement, preserve
management or emergency purposes;



Limiting recreational uses to activities such as photography, hiking, and hunting
where other uses are incompatible with the values for which the property was
acquired;

61

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft



In areas where they are allowed, restricting pets to only being on leash except
in open-space properties where the use of dogs for hunting purposes is
allowed.

Enforcement of these measures is highlighted in section 5.3 (below). In general, Pima
County will avoid actions that limit access to County-controlled mitigation lands for the
recreational purposes of sportsmen lawfully engaged in activities related to the legal
taking of fish and game, as authorized by the Arizona Game and Fish Commission. In
some circumstances, Pima County may work with AZGFD to limit the discharge of
firearms and bows and arrows which can effectively preclude hunting of big and small
game species. The determination as to whether to restrict hunting and fishing on a
particular mitigation property will be decided on a case-by-case basis and Pima County
recognizes the Arizona Game and Fish Commission’s authority over restricting hunting
and fishing. Any Park Rules changes are initially presented to the Pima County Parks
and Recreation Commission in noticed public meetings for approval and then forwarded
to the Pima County Board of Supervisors for adoption.
5.1.5

Trash and Illegal Dumping

To prevent littering and dumping of trash on County-controlled mitigation lands and to
address trash accumulated there, Pima County will, where staffing and circumstance
permit:


Post signage to prevent littering in trail and road access areas;



Impose fines for littering and dumping;



Remove litter and trash on a regular basis;



Prohibit storage of materials such as hazardous and toxic chemicals, and
equipment;



Keep roads and wildlife corridor undercrossings free of debris, trash and all
other obstructions to wildlife movement;



Provide additional monitoring and/or enforcement as needed.

Trash is a significant management issue in many of the County-controlled mitigation
lands, particularly those lands south of Interstate 10 that are traveled by undocumented
immigrants. Though the signage and enforcement activities outlined above will be used
in many natural areas, they are unlikely to have an effect on the amount of discarded
trash from undocumented migrants. To address this management issue, Pima County
regularly organizes multi-day Ranch Cleanups.
5.1.6

Adjacent Management Issues

Many mitigation lands are adjacent to areas of high human use such as housing
developments, roads, and some washes; thereby creating management challenges with
regard to invasive species, trash, and trespassing. As discussed in section 4.2.1,
measures in the Pima County Code limit the indirect effects associated with human use.
These measures are applicable to most occupied areas and not just limited to those

62

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

private-sector Covered Activities. Where Pima County believes that extra measures are
appropriate to address threats particular to specific mitigation lands, Pima County may:


Disseminate educational information to residents adjacent to these areas to
heighten awareness of issues relevant to the particular property (e.g.,
appropriate plantings, construction, pets, lighting, and fire);



Install barriers and maintain fencing, where appropriate;



Evaluate and recommend to the Board of Supervisors, as appropriate, specific
measures to decrease the potential that discretionary land-use requests on
properties adjacent to mitigation lands could have on exacerbating issues such
as invasive species, free-roaming pets, and trespass lighting.

5.2

Ranchland Management

A critical element of the MSCP is the acquisition and lease of ranchland for mitigation.
To date, Pima County has acquired 13 working cattle ranches (Fig. 5.1) where Pima
County intends to maintain livestock and associated grazing agreements from the
Arizona State Land Department and the Bureau of Land Management. Even though
impacts related to the act of grazing are not being proposed for coverage under the
MSCP, Pima County is committing to monitor and manage ranch lands according to a
strict set of standards and guidelines (Appendix C). One exception to the use of
standards and guidelines may be at the Empirita Ranch, where the ranch is not
currently fenced to allow Pima County to manage the cattle herd according the
guidelines.
With one current exception (A7 Ranch), ranches purchased by Pima County are leased
to independent operators (previous owners), who own the cattle, manage day-to-day
operations, and are responsible for operational costs under terms of a management
agreement (Appendix H). Management agreements are negotiated with each rancher
and lists of prohibited and permitted activities are included in these agreements.

63

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Figure 5.1. Working cattle ranches are a cornerstone of the SDCP and represent the bulk of the lands for which
Pima County seeks mitigation for the Section 10 Permit. Where applicable, fee-simple lands are a darker shade
than associated grazing leases.

64

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Pima County will develop and maintain management plans for each of its ranch
properties as time and resources permit, but a management plan will be in place by the
time any given property is submitted for mitigation credit under this MSCP. In some
cases it may be appropriate to develop a single management plan for multiple ranch
properties that are in close proximity to each other. Pima County has been using the
Coordinated Resource Management Plan process to update or develop plans for ranch
properties. To date, two management plans have gone through this process.
Management plans will include an assessment of rangeland resources (ecological sites,
cultural features, etc.), current rangeland conditions, and management goals related to
both ranch operations and wildlife. Managers will utilize range monitoring results and
results from the Pima County Ecological Monitoring Program to periodically update and
revise management plans. Draft management plans will be available for public review
and comment as a part of the planning process. Each management plan will contain
the following goals:


Establish stocking rates, timing, frequency, and duration of grazing that are
consistent with utilization guidelines.



Attain a stable or positive trend in rangeland conditions (vegetative, soils,
productivity) over time.



Utilize grazing systems that will allow for sufficient plant growth, reproduction and
residual cover to protect soils from accelerated erosion.



Adjust stocking rates to account for variation in precipitation and forage
production.



Practice cooperative management and collaboration with ranch operators, other
agencies and the public.



Maintain public access to and across the ranch properties where public health
and safety and negative impacts to wildlife habitat are not an issue.

Pima County manages ranch properties with the intent of achieving sustainable use of
natural resources and maintaining functionally healthy conditions for both wildlife and
livestock. As a foundation for employing a sustainable ranchland model, Pima County
developed standards and guidelines for ranch operations (Pima County 2010) by using
techniques developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research
Service (ARS), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM). These Standards and Guidelines will be used to monitor
rangeland conditions and prescribe management actions and practices necessary to
achieve desired future conditions of rangelands. Guidelines include utilization levels of
key forage species that will be set at an average level of 40%, the recommended
utilization by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, but lower than current
utilization levels on most ranches.

65

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

5.3

Land Protection and Enforcement

On County preserve lands (i.e., collectively, all those lands where Pima County
possesses a property interest and includes those that will be used for permit mitigation),
all environmental ordinances and property-specific rules and terms of legal agreements
where applicable, will be enforced and monitored for compliance to ensure that the
conservation value of these lands are not being diminished. Illegal activities include but
are not limited to illegal off-road vehicle use, illegal trash and toxic chemical dumping,
human and livestock trespass, harmful law enforcement activities, destruction of
infrastructure important for wildlife and their habitat. Pima County Sheriff’s Department
provides a special unit assigned to enforce these areas.
5.3.1

Park Rules

Pima County currently maintains a set of rules for its park system, which includes
mitigation lands (P.C.P.R. 4-040; Appendix N). Park rules are essential to the MSCP
because they provide enforceable rules for management of various public activities on
mitigation lands. Park rules are being updated because of the increase in the extent of
the County preserves, particularly since 2004. The new rules will focus on limiting or
prohibiting activities that might compromise the basic ecological values of a set of
mitigation properties whose primary purposes are to maintain unfragmented habitat for
wildlife and as a working landscape. The rules will provide for a greater range in
management flexibility, from restricting public access to a property altogether, to
controlling access and use by the public for recreational purposes. The new rules will
be similar to those in place on most multiple-use public lands administered by entities
such as the USFWS and U.S. Forest Service.
Under A.R.S. 11-931, violation of adopted Pima County rules is considered a Class II
misdemeanor, which is punishable by a sentence of up to four months in jail and $750
fine, and is considered fairly strict for many of the types of violations of park rules now
being observed. The proposed Park Rules to be adopted for County-controlled
mitigation lands are intended to be consistent with current Pima County Code, but may
be more restrictive.
In addition to the Pima County park rules and local ordinances that Pima County will
use for property protection and law enforcement purposes, all applicable State and
Federal laws (e.g., Clean Water Act, ESA) will be applied. At the state level, the AGFD
Title 17 wildlife laws will be enforceable, as would the new State Title 28 vehicle code
rules for all-terrain vehicle licensing and use.
5.3.2

Mitigation Lands within Private Development

Pima County will monitor and pursue enforcement actions on mitigation lands within
private development (and, in the rare case, off-site mitigation lands provided by the
development). Pima County will monitor for compliance with legally-established
restrictions as required by the Opt-In Program (see Section 3.3.1.1). Maintaining the
integrity and configuration of mitigation lands within developments is fundamental to this
MSCP. Monitoring for these mitigation lands will employ remote sensing tools to detect

66

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

encroachments and disturbances. The availability of imagery that can be used for this
application varies, but is typically collected every three years. No on-the-ground
monitoring will be carried out. If an encroachment or area of disturbance is found within
all or a portion of a designated Mitigation Land, follow-up actions will be taken to
remedy the intrusion. Where remedy is not possible or feasible, the compromised
acreage will be substituted and replaced to maintain mitigation credit as described in
Section 4.4.

5.4

Management Plan Development

Pima County and RFCD will develop site-specific management plans or update existing
management plans for most properties that are greater than 100 acres. For properties
<100 acres, and where it is prudent to do so for larger properties, Pima County may
develop management plans that cover more than one property. This approach will be
employed where such “complexes” of properties have similar resources, threats, and/or
management opportunities. Management plans will only be required for Countycontrolled mitigation lands or for those properties on which the County has conveyed a
conservation easement to another party. Plans will be developed within two years of a
property being designated for mitigation purposes. The level of detail for any given
management plan will vary by property and will range from plans that address a wide
range of resources and activities (e.g., natural and cultural resources, visitor
experience, etc.) to brief documents that focus only on the natural resources for which
the property was acquired. Despite the level of complexity that will be implemented for
each property, all management plans will directly address the management activities
related to the maintenance of MSCP resources including, but not limited to, avoidance
and minimization efforts to ensure protection, species and habitat needs, emerging
threats, invasive species removal needs, ordinance enforcement activities, and
anticipated future resource needs. If a property was acquired to provide habitat for a
particular species or resource, management plans will directly address the specific
management actions that will be undertaken to ensure the continued survival and may
assist recovery of the species or maintenance/improvement of the resource condition.
Even if a parcel does not have an active management plan, park rules and prohibited
and permitted activities will still apply.

5.5

Cooperative Wildlife Management

The Pima County MSCP was developed, in large part, with the goal of wildlife
conservation. Yet, Pima County recognizes that the authority to manage resident
wildlife is reserved to the state through the Arizona Game and Fish Commission and
migratory wildlife and endangered species through the USFWS. Pima County will work
in close consultation with AGFD and USFWS prior to engaging in any species reintroduction efforts.

67

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

6

MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

A primary focus of the Pima County MSCP is on the acquisition of mitigation lands to
create a County preserve system with long-term habitat protection and enhancements
for Covered Species. Though land acquisition is a critical piece of the County’s
conservation program, monitoring and adaptive management of those lands are also
important for ensuring that the values for which they were purchased are maintained
over time and to assess progress towards determining if MSCP goals are being met.
Specifically, the monitoring program must provide information to:


Evaluate compliance with the terms and conditions of the Pima County MSCP
(compliance monitoring);



Assess the achievement of the biological goals and objectives of the Pima
County MSCP (effectiveness monitoring);



Provide direction for—and assess the success of—management actions
(adaptive management);



Identify the occurrence of changed and/or unforeseen circumstances, and
suggest appropriate management responses.

6.1

Compliance Monitoring

Pima County will provide the USFWS with an annual compliance report that will contain
sufficient information for the USFWS to determine whether the County is fulfilling the
requirements of the Section 10 permit, as outlined in the Implementation Agreement
(Appendix M) and this MSCP. Compliance reporting activities will include annual
reporting of habitat loss for each Covered Species based on accounting of CLS acres,
with additional information on PCA or modeled habitat acres and relevant avoidance,
minimization and mitigation activities that the County undertook in that year (see
Section 9.1.1.1 for additional details on annual reporting). The report will also provide
updates on implementation of the Pima County MSCP, including financial
responsibilities and obligations, management responsibilities, changes due to
annexations by other entities, changes to the Capital Improvement Program, and other
requirements of the permit. The results of the compliance monitoring report will be
discussed with USFWS in an annual meeting, followed by a presentation to the public.
To the extent possible, the annual report should inform the decision-making process
with:


Clear and detailed contingency action steps or plans if conditions of the permit or
Implementing Agreement are not being met;



Changes to improve the monitoring program or management strategies (adaptive
management);



Detailed GIS maps and corresponding tabular data that depict habitat loss and
mitigation; and

68

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft



Updated and/or revised evaluation criteria and review questions from subsequent
year(s).

6.2

Effectiveness Monitoring

The majority of the County’s MSCP monitoring effort will be focused on determining the
effectiveness of the County’s fee-title and leased-lands mitigation efforts at maintaining
or improving habitat of Covered Species and their populations and detecting threats that
can negatively impact these resources. To this end, Pima County will implement the
Pima County Ecological Monitoring Program (PCEMP), which is designed to:


Implement monitoring as described in Appendix O, including recording and
entering incidental observations in the Covered Species Information Database



Measure progress toward meeting the biological goal and objectives of the
Pima County MSCP, and



Detect meaningful ecological change(s) and provide information to managers
in a timely manner to ameliorate or mitigate for adverse effects.

The PCEMP will include five programmatic elements for monitoring: species, habitat,
landscape pattern, threats, and climate. This chapter provides a brief introduction to
each element and the parameters (sometimes referred to as “indicators”) associated
with each. The chapter provides a summary of each program element and associated
commitments and principles (e.g., data management), but more details about the
PCEMP are provided in Appendix O and P.
6.2.1

Species Monitoring

Species-level monitoring is a key element of the PCEMP and Pima County will commit
to monitor population parameters for 15 species (Table 6.1), which were chosen to
represent a mix of taxa, habitats, and degree of spatial distribution; from species with
very small distributions in Pima County to species with widespread distributions. The
goal of species monitoring will be to detect changes in population parameters of these
Covered Species over time and to detect biologically meaningful changes to these
populations, particularly declining populations. Table 6.1 provides summary information
about the monitoring effort and Appendix O provides in-depth information about the
protocol to be used, survey effort, and where monitoring will take place. In the early
years of the monitoring program there will be considerable attention put toward
development of species-specific protocols. For most species, protocol development will
include existing USFWS-adopted protocols that have been modified to the County’s
temporal and spatial sampling strategy.

69

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Table 6.1. Summary of the single-species monitoring effort for the Pima County
MSCP. See Appendix O for more detail.
Species
Pima Pineapple
Cactus

Parameter
Abundance/
occupancy

Huachuca Water
Umbel
Lesser long-nosed bat

Occupancy
Abundance or
index to
abundance

Survey Effort
Minimum of 10 sites
surveyed every 3
years
2 areas every 3
years
At least 1 site every
year

Timing of Implementation
(relative to permit issuance)
Preliminary protocol provided
to USFWS within 18 months of
permit issuance.
Preliminary protocol provided
to USFWS within 24 months
Protocol is established; survey
work will begin with 12 months
of permit issuance.

Mexican long-tongued
bat, California leafnosed bat, Pale
Townsend’s big-eared
bat
Cactus ferruginous
pygmy owl

Abundance/
occupancy and
site condition

At least 10 sites
every 3 years

Preliminary protocol provided
to USFWS within 24 months of
permit issuance.

Occupancy

At least 10 sites
every 3 years

Southwestern willow
flycatcher
Western yellow-billed
cuckoo

Presence
Abundance/
occupancy

Three sites every 3
years
Three transects
every 3 years

Habitat mapping and
preliminary protocol provided
to USFWS within 24 months of
permit issuance.
Protocol is established; survey
work will begin with 12 months
Protocol is established; survey
work will begin 12 months of
permit issuance

Gila chub, Gila
topminnow, and
longfin dace

Relative
abundance/
occupancy

Lowland leopard frog

Occupancy

Chiricahua leopard
frog

Occupancy

Sonoran desert
tortoise

Occupancy

6.2.2

Buehman Canyon
every 2 years;
Cienega Creek
every year
At least 6 sites
every 3 years
Restoration areas:
each for three years
after reintroduction
15 sites every 3
years

Notes
Work with USFWS to develop
acceptable protocol
Restoration efforts will be monitored
Monitoring will take place at roost
sites and may occur outside of
County preserves if the County does
not find a roost site on preserve
lands
Monitoring will include restoration
sites

Protocol may need revisiting to
make surveys efficient

Pima County will rely on current
monitoring effort at Cienega Creek
Preserve. If that effort stops, Pima
County will assume responsibility.
Initial survey within 24 months;
protocol within 30 months
Protocol within 18 months of
permit issuance

No populations currently exist on
County preserves

Initial survey within 24 months;
protocol within 30 months

Habitat Monitoring

Habitat monitoring is a key component of the PCEMP and reflects the understanding
that changes in key habitat features can parallel changes in species abundance and
distribution. Determining what constitutes habitat and how to monitor it was a two-year
planning process, and is detailed by Steidl et al. (2010) and summarized in Appendix O.
In brief, the design process considered a host of potential environmental features (i.e.,
habitat features used by many different species) and compared environmental features
based on different objectives that focused on issues of management, importance of
Covered Species relative to other species considered in the planning process, etc.
Some environmental features emerged as the most important to monitor regardless of
the weighting scheme used. Most notably, vegetation characteristics were among the
most important because of their importance as habitat to many of the vertebrates
included in the planning process. In fact, of the top 12 Environmental Features, ten are

70

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

related to vegetation. Not surprisingly, water was another critical feature that emerged
and together, these two groups of parameters will form the foundation of the habitatbased monitoring effort for the PCEMP. Though not part of the design process, caves,
mines, and adits will also be a part of habitat monitoring for the PCEMP. Below is a
brief summary of the habitat elements of the PCEMP.
6.2.2.1 Vegetation
Two aspects of vegetation were consistently chosen in the design process: (1) structure
is the physical formation, arrangement, and physiognomy of vegetation and is often
measured as density or volume of vegetation; and (2) composition refers to the plant
species present on a site and includes measures of stem density, abundance, or
frequency. The objective of vegetation monitoring portion of the PCEMP will be to
detect biologically meaningful changes to vegetation parameters within the County’s
preserve system and which contribute to the health and survival of the Covered
Species. Vegetation monitoring will be resource-intensive, but the results can be
directly related back to multiple Covered Species. This landscape-level effort is being
implemented to address multiple Covered Species and evaluate the effectiveness of the
MSCP.
Vegetation monitoring will involve establishing a network of long-term monitoring plots
(a minimum of 100 plots) at which detailed vegetation measurements will be taken (see
Appendix O for details). Pima County is also investigating the use of aerial LiDAR to
monitor vegetation structure across large portions of the preserve system. Pima County
will commit to monitoring vegetation plots regardless of the outcome of the LiDAR effort
unless the USFWS agrees that the results from the LiDAR surpass those of the groundbased data collected at long-term monitoring plots.
Vegetation monitoring will also continue as part of the County’s annual ranch
management activities. This vegetation monitoring is officially outside the scope of the
MSCP monitoring, but data from this effort will inform the adaptive management of
ranches and contributes to the County’s ability to receive 25% mitigation credit on State
lease lands. These monitoring results will be included in Pima County’s annual MSCP
report.
6.2.2.2 Water Resources
Water plays a key role in most ecological patterns and processes, especially in arid
environments. In riparian areas, water availability determines the extent, composition,
and structure of the vegetation community and has profound effects on biodiversity in
general. Because of its importance, Pima County will commit to monitoring four water
resources: 1) seeps and springs, 2) shallow groundwater in select systems, 3) perennial
streams, and 4) water quality. Details of the water resources and where they will be
monitored can be found in Appendix O.
6.2.2.3 Caves, Mines, and Adits
Caves, mines, and adits are key habitat resources for most of the bat species covered
under the Section 10permit, as wells as for many other wildlife species. Pima County

71

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

will commit to monitoring at least 10 caves, mines, or adits that are home to bats on
County preserves. The location and exact number of caves, mines, and adits included
in the monitoring program will be determined after the County completes an inventory of
possible sites following permit issuance. Initial site visits will entail a detailed survey of
conditions including size and dimensions, recent evidence of vandalism, and any
structural issues that may cause deterioration of the cave or preclude subsequent visits,
as well as a determination about the potential for installing bat-friendly gating.
Management actions to reduce threats to the mine and help ensure long-term stability of
the resources will be made on a case-by-case basis and as resources permit.
6.2.3

Landscape Pattern

As its name implies, landscape pattern takes a broader view than does the singlespecies monitoring or habitat monitoring; it includes land-cover type, land use and a
variety of derived parameters such as fragmentation and roads. This approach is
anticipatory in that many of these features are among the best leading indicators of
change. Analysis of landscape pattern will focus on detecting short-term change in land
uses or land-use intensities, land ownership, preserve status, and the extent and
configuration of County roads and sewers. At intervals determined by the availability of
appropriate products—most notably the National Land Cover Dataset— Pima County
will analyze changes in land cover across the entire County or portions of the County for
which data is available. In addition to the National Land Cover Dataset, the County will
use other remotely sensed products, especially multi-spectral, high resolution satellite
imagery, as they are made available to enumerate finer-scale changes in land-cover
types throughout the County. The cost of obtaining these products for large areas (e.g.,
eastern Pima County) is beyond the capability of the PCEMP to undertake; therefore,
the PCEMP will rely on other entities such as the Pima Association of Governments to
spearhead acquisition of remotely sensed imagery. The high-resolution data collected
by the Pima Association of Governments will also be used to validate whether the openspace set asides within private development (for which Pima County is claiming
mitigation credit) remain in a natural and undisturbed state.
6.2.4

Threats

Like landscape pattern, threats monitoring can be similarly broad and anticipatory and
can have some overlap with landscape pattern for parameters such as land use and
road networks. Yet the primary focus of threats monitoring will be on-the-ground
activities at County preserve lands. Staff will collect data associated with the extent and
severity of: off-road vehicle use, invasive species, groundwater pumping, vandalism and
littering, and toxic chemical spills. Pima County will report changes in these parameters
at intervals appropriate to the data being collected.
6.2.5

Climate Monitoring

Climate is a primary driver of natural processes and therefore will play an important role
in the PCEMP. Fortunately, many other governmental entities have extensive climate
monitoring stations and Pima County will use these data, including those from: Arizona

72

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Automated Local Evaluation in Real Time Network, Arizona Meteorological Network,
National Weather Service Cooperative Observer Program, Colorado River Basin
Forecast Center, Citizen Weather Observer Program, Remote Automated Weather
Station Network, and others. Because of the high spatial variability of precipitation in
this region, Pima County will install precipitation gauges at select long-term monitoring
plots on preserve lands. Data will be reported to the Service every 12-24 months
depending on the site.

6.3

Program Duration and Phasing

Prior to permit issuance, Pima County will continue program planning activities, but
(with a few exceptions) compliance and ecological monitoring will start after permit
issuance. The PCEMP will be fully implemented (i.e., all program elements will
monitored at least once) within five years and implementation will be in three planning
phases. Within one year of permit issuance the County will enact an implementation
plan to guide program development through the end of Planning and Implementation
Phase III. The reason for the phasing, rather than starting all program elements and
parameters at once, is to: 1) complete inventories of Covered Species and habitat
resources, the location of which is essential to determine before the County finalizes the
selection of monitoring sites; and 2) allow for field testing of protocol and optimization of
spatial and temporal sampling designs to ensure that the program is as efficient as
possible before finalizing the long-term monitoring protocols. In this way, each planning
phase builds on the success and lessons learned from the previous phase(s).
6.3.1

Planning and Implementation Phase I: Permit Years 1-2

Planning Phase I will take place within two years of permit issuance. The primary
programmatic activities in Phase I will include:


Inventory of County preserves to locate features that might not already be known
about the properties and that are directly related to the presence of Covered
Species and their habitat. Features include the presence of Covered Species
themselves; caves, mines and adits; riparian vegetation; and presence of water.
Threats will also be recorded. This information, combined with that already
collected on the properties will provide a good baseline of information that will
assist in the avoidance of impacts to habitat features used by Covered Species.



Single-species monitoring. The first year of survey effort for each species will be
devoted to protocol development, field testing the protocols, selection of
monitoring sites, and subsequent revision of monitoring approach, if needed.
Other activities will include development of the programs’ database.



Field visit protocol, including standard operating procedures for all field crews to
follow when conducting field work. Data collected will include: (1) information
about the area and time visited; (2) incidental observations of select species; (3)
observation of a list of invasive species (approximately 15-20) that all field crews
will be required to know and record if seen; and (4) evidence of recent
disturbance such as trash or off-road vehicle use.

73

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

6.3.2

Planning and Implementation Phase II: Permit Year 3

Monitoring activities in Phase II will involve continuing many of the activities from Phase
I (except inventories) and include the following activities:


Further refine field protocol for vegetation and ground-cover monitoring at longterm ecological sites. Continue to develop and field test the protocol that was
started prior to permit issuance (Appendix O). Full implementation on all plots
will take place during Phase III and beyond.

Water resource monitoring at:


Seeps and springs, which will involve periodic assessments of flow at select
spings and seeps on County preserves;



Perennial and intermittent creek flow, which will involve wet/dry mapping at select
creeks (Youtcy, Buehman, Espiritu) at least once per year. Wet/dry mapping at
Cienega Creek will continue.

Threats monitoring will include protocol development for:


County data related to the built environment (e.g., extent and location of the built
environment) and the extent and location of some future development based on
Comprehensive Plan Amendments, rezoning, etc.



Changes in land-cover type, as products such as the National Land Cover
Dataset and Southwestern ReGAP become available.



Field-based protocol for collecting information on off-road vehicle traffic in
ecologically sensitive areas, invasive species, etc.

Other activities during Planning Phase II will include: development and finalizing a
safety plan and working with interested citizens and citizen groups to determine
appropriate projects for their involvement.
6.3.3

Planning and Implementation Monitoring Phase III: Permit Years 4-5

Phase III will be completed within five years of permit issuance. Activities in Planning
Phase III will include continuation of elements from Phases I and II, which will be
finalized during Phase III. New program activities will be:


Development and implementation of the climate monitoring protocol, which will
focus on precipitation monitoring at select long-term habitat monitoring sites; and



Finalizing the program’s data management and communications plans.

6.4

Location of Monitoring Activities

Most on-the-ground ecological monitoring will be on County Preserves greater than 100
acres in size, though monitoring will take place on smaller properties if specific resource
(e.g., springs) exist there (see Appendix O for a map of properties included). County

74

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Preserves include properties owned and leased by Pima County, some of which are not
being used for Section 10 mitigation (e.g., Tucson Mountain Park). Additional
monitoring sites may be located where an agency, organization, or individual agrees to
allow monitoring on their respective lands. Mitigation lands within private development
(including those mitigation lands provided by the development but which are off-site) will
not be used for ecological monitoring. Remote sensing tools (e.g., aerial photographs
and satellite imagery) will ensure that those lands are being conserved in keeping with
requirements of the Opt-In Provision, however no on-the-ground ecological monitoring
activities will occur on those sites. Finally, monitoring for the landscape pattern element
will employ remote sensing data that is collected for large areas of land, including areas
outside of County preserves.

6.5

Data Management

Robust data management principles, practices, and procedures will be a cornerstone of
the PCEMP and the draft data management plan provides a strategy to ensure that all
PCEMP data are well documented, secure, accessible, and useful for the life of the
permit and beyond (see Appendix O for more information). As part of the data
management enterprise, the PCEMP will distribute natural resource monitoring
information to make data available to a wide community of users, including County staff,
other researchers and scientists, and the public.
Pima County will also work with the City of Tucson and Town of Marana HCP programs
to share data management tools and results to both leverage resources and provide
communication among these entities, though Pima County envisions being the central
data repository of all scientific data for the Pima County MSCP. Pima County will
ensure data security, compliance with Federal and State standards, and provision of
guidance with respect to standards for data submitted by participants.
6.5.1

Covered Species Information Database

Monitoring activities will form the foundation of the program and will be used to
determine permit compliance and effectiveness. Yet the program will benefit from the
fact that Tucson is a regional center for ecological research and monitoring activities,
much of which could contribute to an understanding of the distribution and abundance
of Covered Species. To provide an effective means of collecting and summarizing this
information, Pima County will develop the Covered Species Information Database.
Pima County will periodically query researchers, governmental entities, and nongovernmental organizations regarding any data collected on Covered Species.
Information sought will include reports, sightings, or emergence of new threats. If
deemed appropriate and if acceptable to the entity contributing the data, information
from these sources will be part of the annual report to the USFWS. Participating
researchers and government and non-governmental entities would be encouraged to
participate through public outreach activities, but the program would be on a voluntary
basis. These data will be available to other HCP efforts in the region.

75

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

6.6

Adaptive Management

It has been a guiding principle throughout the SDCP process that sound stewardship of
natural resources requires that managers base their decisions on the best available
information (Pima County 2001a). The PCEMP is being designed to monitor a range of
resources (species, habitat, ecosystem, threats, climate), which may will impact
Covered Species. As these resources change over time, management actions may
need to address or correct observed trends (particularly negatively trends) in Covered
Species and/or their habitats. In the design process for the program, the parameters
included in the habitat monitoring element were chosen, in part, on the ability of
management actions to address negative trends in these resources (Steidl et al. 2010).
The evaluation of management actions using monitoring data and subsequently
informing future management actions is known as adaptive management. Adaptive
management is an iterative learning process that identifies gaps in understanding,
facilitates action, and modifies management based on new information (Walters 1986).
Pima County will employ two types of adaptive management: 1) those decisions for
which a single management action is needed (responsive management actions) and 2)
decisions that require recurrent actions (recurrent decisions). Each is discussed below.
6.6.1

Responsive Management Actions

Responsive management actions take place in situations where there is little or no
uncertainty about the causes of observed resource change or where there is only a
single management action to pursue, such as the purchase of additional lands or a
specific treatment of non-native species. Responsive management actions can also
include those opportunities where some uncertainty exists about the course of action to
take, but where it may be impractical or prohibitive to undertake a research effort to
determine the best course of action. Responsive management actions will most likely
be applied to many changed circumstances outlined in Chapter 7 and/or where it is
determined that the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures outlined in this
MSCP are not achieving their desired outcomes. Management actions in this context
are typically one-time decisions affecting activities or policies on County preserves and
include such actions as:


Revisions to internal protocols and standard operating procedures that improve
avoidance and minimization practices;



Amendments to—or additional—Pima County Code requirements that improve
avoidance and minimization practices contingent upon approval by the Board
of Supervisors;



Adjustments to the land acquisition program;



Revisions to regulatory programs applicable to County-owned mitigation lands;



Removal of non-native species or other threat;



Restoration activities

Monitoring will play an integral part in responsive management actions because the
outcome of these types of on-the-ground management activities and new acquisitions

76

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

will be integrated into the PCEMP as they relate to Covered Species and their habitats.
As such, monitoring data from these efforts provide an extraordinary opportunity for
learning and for determining the success of management actions. This integrated
framework will provide managers in Pima County and elsewhere with an unprecedented
opportunity to evaluate data that have direct application to assessing program progress
towards meeting the SDCP and MSCP goals.
Beyond the more structured learning process outlined above, there will be many
opportunities during the permit to learn from management actions that are more
unintentional because monitoring sites will be impacted by both stochastic and planned
events, such as floods and wildland fire. These quasi-experiments can provide an
opportunity to compare impacted sites with those not experiencing impacts (Green
1979). Though not formally a responsive management action, these events will provide
extraordinary learning opportunity because of the spatial and temporal scope of the
PCEMP and the establishment of baseline conditions.
6.6.2

Recurrent Management Actions

The second type of adaptive management will be those situations where monitoring
data contribute to management actions that are repeated over time. We term these
recurrent management actions and applications include those situations where an onthe-ground management effort is repeated at a regular interval (e.g., annually). In the
Pima County MSCP, the most significant use of recurrent management decisions will be
in regards to the ranch management program, specifically cattle stocking-rates and its
relation to improving resource conditions over an established baseline. Recurrent
management decisions could also be employed in situations where species
reintroductions take place in multiple iterations, whereby monitoring data will inform both
the success of reintroduction efforts and potential alternatives to meet program goals.
For example, by monitoring parameters in addition to the species themselves, it may be
determined that reintroduction efforts should be undertaken within a specific range of
environmental conditions.

6.7

Adapting Monitoring: Changed Circumstances and New
Methods

An objective of the PCEMP is to provide timely information to managers. To enable this
feedback process, it is essential that the program be broad in scope, flexible in design,
and responsive to unforeseen management issues and threats as they arise. These
changed and unforeseen circumstances (see Chapter 7) will inform changes to existing
monitoring protocols, as well as the potential to implement entirely new protocols to
address them. Many changes to the monitoring program will be carried out in
coordination with the USFWS and subject-matter experts. An evaluation of the need for
additional funding will be included in any assessment of Changed Circumstances.
Changes to a monitoring protocol will not need an amendment to the permit.
In addition to Changed Circumstances, it is inevitable that, during the course of the 30year permit period, new and better monitoring tools and analytical methods will be

77

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

developed. Therefore, Pima County will notify the USFWS of any emerging
technologies or methods that might have direct application to the PCEMP. If a new
technology or method is adopted by the program, Pima County will provide a report on
the technical issues, most importantly how to crosswalk legacy data (i.e., data already
collected) with a new data collection protocol or analytical technique. This will ensure
consistency of results and ensure that legacy data are properly incorporated into the
new protocol. These reports will be part of the annual reports to be provided to the
USFWS.
The final type of change that may be needed is the possible discontinuation of a
monitoring protocol if the information being received is not meeting expectations.
Discontinuation of protocols is common in ecological monitoring programs because of
labor/equipment cost increases, or more commonly because the level of sampling
required to detect a meaningful trend is greater than was originally budgeted. Because
cost and sampling design issues are being considered in the design of the PCEMP,
Pima County does not anticipate that significant changes will occur. Nevertheless, it
may be necessary. Prior to discontinuation of a protocol, Pima County will convene a
review by subject-matter experts to determine if the existing protocol can be modified to
meet budgetary constraints and change detection goals. Changes to protocols or
discontinuation of protocols will be carried out in consultation with the local USFWS
representative and/or species expert.

6.8

PCEMP Oversight

Input and support from the public and scientific communities was one of the keys to the
successful implementation of the SDCP. Pima County will continue to employ input
from the public and scientific communities as part of PCEMP implementation.
Specifically, Pima County will engage three groups for their input: County staff, external
peer reviewers, and local stakeholders. These groups will evaluate different facets of
the PCEMP to help ensure scientific credibility, feasibility, and efficient implementation
into management actions. Roles and processes are described in Chapter 9.

6.9

Monitoring Partnerships

One of the key lessons learned from regional-scale conservation planning efforts
elsewhere in the U.S. is the importance of cooperation and coordination among relevant
entities. Ultimately, the success of the PCEMP will hinge, in part, upon the application of
the best scientific and management principles that are shared by all the major land
owners and managers of the region. The most likely partners early in the program’s
implementation will be the National Park Service’s Sonoran Desert Network Inventory
and Monitoring Program and Bureau of Land Management’s Las Cienegas National
Conservation Area, the Town of Marana, City of Tucson, Pima Association of
Governments, Arizona Game and Fish Department, and the USFWS, as well as many
other entities.

78

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

7

CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES, UNFORESEEN
CIRCUMSTANCES, NO SURPRISES, AND OTHER
FEDERAL COMMITMENTS

Section 10 regulations [50 CFR 17.22(b)(2)(iii)] require that a conservation plan specify
the procedures to be used for dealing with changed and unforeseen circumstances that
may arise during the implementation of the HCP. In addition, the Habitat Conservation
Plan Assurances (“No Surprises”) Rule defines “changed circumstances” and
“unforeseen circumstances,” and describes the obligation of HCP permittee and the
USFWS.

7.1

Introduction

Pima County will make every effort to implement avoidance, minimization, and
mitigation measures (conservation measures) necessary to conserve the Covered
Species and their habitats. In addition, the management of mitigation lands, the 10-year
initial permit evaluation, and the flexible provisions regarding the expenditure of
mitigation funds provided by Pima County are intended to meet and address future
exigencies and emergency situations. Thus, the Pima County MSCP is well situated to
reduce the potential for adverse changed or unforeseen circumstances on the Covered
Species and their habitats. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Pima County MSCP, if
adverse changes or unforeseen circumstances result in, or threaten, a substantial
change in the population of any Covered Species or the overall quality of any habitat of
that species, as determined pursuant to the procedure outlined herein, Pima County
and USFWS shall cooperate to resolve the adverse impacts in accordance with this
section. For the purposes of this MSCP the terms “changed circumstances” and
“unforeseen circumstances” are defined in the Habitat Conservation Plan Assurances
(“No Surprises”) Rule.

7.2

Changed Circumstances

Changed Circumstances are “changes in circumstances affecting a species or
geographic area covered by an HCP that can reasonably be anticipated by Plan
developers and the Service and that can be planned for (e.g., the listing of a new
species, or a fire or other natural catastrophic event in areas prone to such events)” (50
CFR §17.3). Table 7.1 lists identifiable Changed Circumstances and Pima County’s
potential responses.

79

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Table 7.1. Changed circumstances for the Pima County Section 10 permit.
Category
Involuntary loss of
State Trust
grazing leases
designated as
mitigation

Circumstance/Scenario
County loses ability to hold
state grazing leases that have
been identified as mitigation.
Loss is reported in annual
report to the USFWS

Climate Change

Climate change affects a host
of resources and processes,
including water availability,
precipitation events, etc.

Potential Impact on Covered
Species and/or their Habitat
New lessees might manage or use
the land differently, or restrict
access for management and
monitoring. Species and/or habitat
may be negatively impacted.

Declines in habitat quality and
extent for species that are
dependent on riparian forest
structure and aquatic habitat.
Periodic elimination of non-native
or native fish, potentially other
covered aquatic vertebrates.
Increased warming increases Shifts in plant community
the length of the growing
composition and distribution that
season. More annual growth could indirectly affect Covered
in plants when sufficient water Species.
exists.
Habitat
Central Arizona Project
Improved habitat for riparian and
Improvement
recharge creates aquatic
aquatic Covered Species; potential
habitat, and expands riparian for providing habitat for invasive
habitat.
aquatic species.
Due to the efforts of The
Some aquatic species benefit, but
Nature Conservancy and
it is possible for longfin dace and
discontinued mining
lowland leopard frog to decline due
downstream, Lower San
to improved habitat conditions for
Pedro River becomes better invasive species. Riparian, forestwatered.
dependent Covered Species
benefit.
Habitat
Land is graded on CountyLoss of habitat and fragmentation
Loss/Degradation: held grazing leases, County of landscape, reducing viability of
Development
conservation easements, or some Covered Species
County-owned mitigation
populations.
lands for infrastructure or
other developments beyond
County’s control (e.g.,
condemnation)
Conversion of desert, riparian Fragmentation of landscape,
areas, or grasslands to
reducing viability of some Covered
agriculture in Permit Area or Species populations.
on adjacent tribal lands.

Mitigation lands within
development are
compromised
New unplanned foot trails
adversely affect Covered
Species.

Potential Response(s)
Loss of leased land may result in the loss of
mitigation credit. If the mitigation credit is needed
to offset mitigation impacts which have already
occurred, the lost CLS mitigation value will be
replaced in full through commitment of additional
CLS lands. If practicable, the replacement lands
will be identified and committed prior to actual loss
of the lease.
Section 7.2.1 describes ways in which Pima
County addresses climate change.

See Section 7.2.1. No management response, but
monitoring rainfall will be a priority for the PCEMP.

No action, however Pima County will remain
available to assist tribal governments and other
entities in developing projects or programs
consistent with the Pima County MSCP.
Coordinate with The Nature Conservancy and
others on land management and acquisition
opportunities.

Verify that loss has occurred; if so, replace with
lands elsewhere in the CLS according to acres of
impacts and MSCP mitigation ratios of the
condemned lands, if mitigation credit is needed.
Attach conservation easements to new mitigation
lands. Seek mitigation from those causing the
damage.

No action; Pima County has no regulatory
authority over agricultural land use. However Pima
County will continue to offer support and
assistance to Tribal governments and other
landowners in developing their own conservation
programs that are consistent with the Pima County
MSCP.
Loss of habitat and permeability
County may pursue remedy; If remedy is not
(connectivity).
possible or feasible, County will substitute
compromised mitigation land with lands
elsewhere.
More disturbances of roosting and Consider systematic monitoring; Incorporate
nesting of Covered Species.
requirements for mapping, removal, and
Spread of invasive species.
restoration of wildcat trails in Conservation
Easements and/or Management Plans; Ensure
approved trails will have limited, designated
access points.

80

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Category
Habitat
Loss/Degradation:
ORVs

Circumstance/Scenario
Increased off-road vehicle
(ORV) use in existing and
proposed preserves.

Habitat
Construction of expanded
Loss/Degradation: international port-of-entry and
Roads
highway improvements in
Altar Valley.
Interstate 10 bypass placed in
Avra Valley

New roads or utilities
established in CLS outside
Preserves.
Paved road over Redington
Pass.

Paving San Pedro River Road
from Pomerene to San
Manuel
Habitat
Severe freezes lead to
Loss/Degradation: widespread mesquite die
Vegetation
back and incidence of
bacterial necrosis in saguaros
increases.
Reduction in effluent flow
from County treatment facility
contributes to dieoffs of
riparian forest and elimination
of aquatic vegetation along
the Santa Cruz River in Pima
County.
Elimination of natural,
restored or created wetlands,
cienega and cienega-like
environments due to social
conflict or public perception
(airport restrictions; mosquito,
other vector and aesthetic
preference issues).
Desiccation of other
groundwater-dependent
riparian systems.

Potential Impact on Covered
Species and/or their Habitat
General habitat degradation with
potential lethal take of terrestrial
Covered Species.

Potential Response(s)
Pursue increasing enforcement; road restoration
efforts; consideration for designated ORV areas to
be established. Existing laws ban ORVs from
public washes and riverbeds.
Increase in lethal take, particularly Support State and Federal agencies in efforts to
along State Routes 286 and 86;
minimize impacts and monitor conditions,
increased risk of influx of invasive especially for Covered Species. Propose tools for
species; potential adverse effect on reducing impacts (e.g., wildlife underpasses and
cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl, box fencing).
turtle, and Pima pineapple cactus.
Additional incidental take and
Discuss with Arizona Department of Transportation
fragmentation of Covered Species alternative routes or ways to minimize and mitigate
habitat, especially Tucson shovel- damage, suggest incorporating appropriate wildlife
nosed snake, ground snake,
crossing structures in the design phase of the
Sonoran desert tortoise, burrowing project.
owl, and cactus ferruginous
pygmy-owl.
Potential for Covered Species to
Solicit legally-enforceable protections for occupied
be affected.
habitat; target additional areas for mitigation by
utilities or road builders.
Likely significant increase in
Such paving is not a Covered Activity. Pima
vehicular traffic, ORV use, habitat County has already purchased many of the
destruction and fragmentation,
developable lands, and has targeted additional
roadkill, and spread of invasive
developable lands in the San Pedro Valley.
species.
Loss of Huachuca water umbel
Monitor conditions at Bingham Cienega.
habitat at Bingham Cienega; more
development in San Pedro basin,
resulting in fragmented Covered
Species habitat.
Minor effects to pygmy-owl nesting Landscape-scale reserve design covers broad
sites. Minor loss of foraging habitat areas, not all of which would be affected equally at
for lesser long-nosed bat.
any given time. Continue with acquisition program
that is focused on securing diversity of vegetation
communities
Increase in burrobush, decrease in Determine what impacts to Covered Species have
aquatic habitat area. Riparian
occurred. Evaluate strategies to reverse or
forest-dependent and aquatic
minimize impacts to Covered Species. Engage
Covered Species decline.
effluent owners in minimization or mitigation
strategies. Consider allocations of alternative
water sources to the river.
Destruction of existing wetlands
may affect for one or more
Covered Species and their
habitat(s).

Threats to natural wetlands and cienegas will be
assessed to determine possible interventions.

Habitat quality and quantity for
Covered Species associated with
riparian forest will decline.
Mesquite bosques and
broadleaved deciduous trees will
be more stressed, and fewer
recruitment events will occur.
Habitat quality and quantity for
Covered Species aquatic species
will decline.

Seek to acquire important aquatic areas and water
rights; Participate in multi-jurisdiction efforts to
increase water conservation and public education;
Asses site-specific circumstances for possible
interventions; evaluate effectiveness of monitoring.

81

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Category

Potential Impact on Covered
Species and/or their Habitat
Shift to less aquatic habitat, more
strand vegetation over time.
Mesquite bosques and
broadleaved deciduous trees will
be more stressed, and fewer
recruitment events will occur.
Habitat quality and quantity for
aquatic and riparian Covered
Species
Arrival of fire ants (Solenopsis Potential impact on leopard frogs,
invicta) into riparian areas
northern Mexican gartersnake, and
giant spotted whiptail lizard.

Circumstance/Scenario
Increase in desiccation of
Lower Cienega Creek by
groundwater pumping by
residential and commercial
development in the Vail,
Empirita, and Mescal areas

Potential Response(s)
Coordinated and concerted effort to work with
landowners and developers in minimizing pumping
and its impacts; purchase riparian habitat and/or
water rights (ongoing); long-term potential for
treating and reusing wastewater for landscape
irrigation and support of natural systems.

Fire ant reports should be conveyed immediately
to the Arizona Department of Agriculture, with
whom a response should be coordinated.
Immediate response may prevent establishment.
Consider enhanced monitoring effort.
Establishment of feral pigs,
Potentially problematic for riparian Establish a program under which feral pigs, sheep,
sheep, or goats in additional and aquatic Covered Species.
and goats are removed from County preserves.
conserved riparian areas
Include removal actions in all Conservation
(outside of the San Pedro
Easements and/or management plans developed
River).
for Conserved Lands.
Invasion by exotic species or Reduction in abundance,
Consult with species experts and the USFWS to
species-specific disease that distribution or habitat quality for
create a response strategy.
threaten Covered Species or Covered Species. Impacts to
their habitats which cannot be species and their habitats are
effectively controlled by
unlikely to be restricted to Pima
currently available methods or County properties.
technologies or which cannot
be effectively controlled
without resulting in greater
harm to other Covered
Species.
Invasive aquatic species (e.g., Bullfrogs: negative effect on
Work to eradicate invasive species at select sites.
bullfrog, crayfish, non-native aquatic Covered Species.
Identify and manage problematic stock ponds on
fish) enter Cienega Creek or Crayfish: negative effect on aquatic County-controlled mitigation lands. Support
other aquatic sites from non- Covered Species. Mosquitofish
crayfish restrictions on commerce; public
Central Arizona Project
(Gambusia): adverse effects upon education, encourage fish management by AGFD,
sources.
Gila topminnow and would be
develop interagency contingency plans. Seek
difficult to remove. Sunfish could
voluntary restriction on distribution of Gambusia for
affect topminnow, chub, and
mosquito control.
gartersnake. Effects greater if the
fish get into Upper Cienega
watershed as opposed to Lower
Cienega.
New species of landscaping Effects on Covered Species is not Seek revisions to Pima County approved plant lists
plants are discovered to be
possible to forecast.
and recommend new species be added to the
invasive into wildland settings,
State of Arizona list of noxious weeds. Develop
affecting habitat of Covered
protocols to restrict commercial distribution of
Species.
landscaping species found to be invasive.
Removal of invasive plants and follow-up
monitoring.
Utilization of Central Arizona Harm could be great to covered
Identify likelihood of harm to Pima County
Project water introduces new native aquatic vertebrates and their populations of Covered Species. Work with
non-native aquatic species to habitat. New species could include Federal partners; seek voluntary restrictions on
Santa Cruz watershed.
quagga mussel (Dreissena
untreated Central Arizona Project discharge to
rostriformis bugensis) zebra
watercourses.
mussel, (Dreissena polymorpha)
New Zealand mudsnail
(Potamopyrgus antipodarum), and
Salvinia.

82

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Category
Listed Species

Listed Species

Circumstance/Scenario
Future listing of a Covered
Species that was not listed at
the time permit was originally
issued
Natural establishment of
Yuma clapper rail (Rallis
longirostris yumanensis),
least tern (Sturnula antillarum)
or other currently listed
species that is not considered
for Section 10 permit
coverage.

Introduced Native Native species (e.g., beaver
Species
or prairie dog) introduced or
re-established, which reduce
the abundance, distribution or
habitat for Covered Species
within the Permit Area.
Listing Change
Delisting of Covered Species.

New designation of Critical
Habitat for Covered Species.

Potential Impact on Covered
Species and/or their Habitat
None

Could have direct or indirect
impacts on Covered Species,
through predation, competition, or
habitat modifications.

Direct or indirect impacts on
covered species, such as
predation, competition, or habitat
modification may result
None

None

Designation of Critical Habitat NA
for species that are not
covered under the permit
Monitoring

Mining

Mitigation land
inadequacy

Changes in monitoring
protocols are proposed to
STAT or other technical group
because of failures to detect
trends, high cost or
inefficiencies in the current
design.

No direct change, but negative
trends in populations, habitats, or
increases in threats that are not
detected by the program may
preclude intervention activities.
Changing protocols may increase
precision of estimates and increase
the cost of the monitoring effort
Copper or other mining
Potential contamination of streams
begins at Rosemont,
with heavy metals, and watershed
Davidson Canyon, Buehman diversions or habitat losses.
Canyon, or other watersheds. Potential effects upon Covered
Species located in the direct
impact areas or upon downstream
aquatic Covered Species.
Increased saltcedar along
watercourses laden with salts.
New limestone quarries
Could affect needle-spined cactus
established in various areas and, potentially, certain bat roosts.
outside County preserves.
Major expansion of existing
Loss of habitat for Covered
mines
Species
The acreage of Covered
Impacts exceeds available
mitigation land credits and
Pima County offers no
additional mitigation credit to
meet the obligation

Impacts remain uncompensated
according to the CLS formula

83

Potential Response(s)
USFWS automatically authorizes incidental and/or
lethal take of such newly listed covered species as
prescribed by regulation (63 FR 35, February 23,
1998).
Evaluate necessity of amending permit to add
species to the permit and whether any additional
measures are needed by Pima County. If found
on County lands, surveys, management, and
additional monitoring actions would be established
when new species are added to the County’s
permit (see Section 7.5). The nature and extent of
these actions would be negotiated with the
USFWS at the time of permit amendment.
Report any relevant post-project monitoring
information to USFWS and AZGFD. Confer with
those agencies regarding any steps that can be
taken to reduce observed impacts on Covered
Species.
A delisted species would be considered a covered,
unlisted species and Pima County would continue
to implement any associated species-specific
conservations strategies.
No further action by Pima County is needed. The
MSCP has adequately addressed habitat for
Covered Species.
Pima County will assess the importance of critical
habitat on a species-by-species basis and may
choose to amend the permit to cover the species
or seek a Section 7 consultation, if needed.
Any changes will be made with the approval of the
local USFWS office or species expert.

Support the USFS or other agencies in their efforts
to develop permit requirements to avoid or
minimize potential adverse impacts. Seek antidegradation provisions from State, and
withdrawals from Federal government, if
authorized by the County Board. Compliance with
all monitoring, permit amendments and closure
requirements are the main activities that can be
taken afterwards.
Seek additional limestone lands as part of the
County-controlled mitigation lands. Board may
choose to direct staff to take additional action
Pima County will encourage authorities to mitigate
consistent with SDCP policies & guidelines
The USFWS, the Pima County Board of
Supervisors, and the public will be notified. Permit
coverage for the unmitigated balance of
development will be suspended. No additional
ESA protection for Covered Activities will be
available until the deficiency is rectified. If

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Category

Circumstance/Scenario

Potential Impact on Covered
Species and/or their Habitat

Change in County Pima County revises
regulations
regulations or policies

Permit Area
Change

Population
change

Taxonomic
Change

Toxic spill

Wildlife/Plant
disease
Wildland Fire

No harm if ordinances provide
equal or greater protection of
resources. Weakening of
avoidance and minimization
measures may impact some
species
Pima County loses State trust Stewardship might change and
lands grazing leases or right more impacts are apparent
to operate as a result of
voluntary or involuntary
actions by the County
Federal land is conveyed to Stewardship might change and
private sector
more impacts might ensue
State land is conveyed to
private sector in permit area
Loss of a known population of
Covered Species within Pima
County.

Stewardship might change and
more impacts might ensue
Effects are species dependant.
Tucson shovel-nosed snake may
be extirpated from Pima County.

Immigration of Covered
Species into Countycontrolled mitigation lands or
elsewhere in the Permit Area.
Precipitous population decline
in other species outside Pima
County
New genetic information
reclassifies species

Increase in population(s) of
Covered Species.

Toxic or hazardous waste spill
into Cienega Creek or the
Santa Cruz River either from
the railroad or from the
Interstate Highway.
Pathogens affect Covered
Species or key habitat feature
of Covered Species
Wildland fire exceeding 1,000
acres in size occur inside or
outside the County preserve
system. Not all County
preserves are affected at the
same time, but at least one is.

Viability of species’ continued
existence declines.
No physical effect on Covered
Species, but legal status may
change.

Potential adverse effect on
Covered Species native fish and
frogs, including kill-off; loss of
vegetation within Important
Riparian Area.
Reduced abundance or distribution
of Covered Species; potential
reduction of habitat quality
Direct mortality of Covered
Species. Enhanced erosion and
siltation. Fire may open up the
forested environments on
mountains possibly harming some
species. In lower elevations,
potential loss or alteration of
habitat for most Covered Species.
The result of wildland fires may
benefit Covered Species such as
the Swainson's hawk. May be
instrumental in improving
watershed condition over the long
term.

84

Potential Response(s)
mitigation deficiency can not be rectified, FWS
may cancel the permit.
No response if regulatory changes do not affect
the measures listed in Table 4.1 of the MSCP.
Pima County will request USFWS to review
revisions to ordinances and guidelines listed in
Table 4.1. Pima County will provide the USFWS
review to the appropriate regulatory body.
Pima County will replace with fee-simple or leased
land elsewhere to maintain the appropriate
balance of mitigation credits, if needed
No action required by Pima County, however the
County may wish seek a permit amendment to
cover private development if the released land is
not in the permit area.
Pima County will impose the MSCP measures to
Covered activities.
Where appropriate, Pima County will participate in
reestablishment of species on committed lands, in
coordination and collaboration with USFWS and
AGFD.
This is a desirable outcome.

Encourage USFWS and AGFD to include Pima
County in regional surveys; review County
monitoring data for evidence of decline.
No change if the species is split into two or more
species or subspecies, other than acknowledging
the taxonomic change in the appropriate annual
report. If the species is subsumed into another
species with a larger geographic distribution, then
Pima County may elect to amend the permit.
Render assistance to responding agencies; seek
post-spill remedies from the responsible parties
and through regulating agencies.
Discuss appropriate course of action with subjectmatter experts; consider whether any management
changes are needed on County lands
Determine whether the fire will improve long-term
conditions. Participate in cross-jurisdictional fire
evaluation and management actions. Continue to
protect lands that span different mountain ranges
and watersheds. Rest mitigation lands from
grazing if severely burned to facilitate recovery and
forage production.

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

7.2.1

Changed Circumstances: Climate Change

Climate change is a considerable threat to the biota of Pima County and beyond (Powell
2010) and, therefore, warrants special analysis regarding the Section 10 permit. During
the 20th Century, the earth’s surface warmed by an average of 0.74°C (IPCC 2007), a
trend that appeared to be even more severe in the southwestern U.S. (Lenart and
Crawford 2007). Climate models for the 21st Century show an acceleration of
temperature increases and more severe and prolonged drought in the Southwest U.S.
(Christensen et. al. 2007, Seager et. al. 2007). In Pima County, precipitation is
expected to become more variable and with reduced winter precipitation. Because
temperature and precipitation influence the abundance and distribution of biota and
impact ecosystem processes, climate change impacts will be far-reaching and
unprecedented (Parmesan 2006).
Modeled impacts of climate change on biodiversity, in particular, predict extraordinary
change; by one estimate 15-37% of the earth’s species may go extinct by 2050 as a
result of climate change (Thomas et. al. 2004). Not surprisingly, the potential for
extinction is greatest for those species that are already at risk, such as many of Pima
County’s Covered Species. Climate-driven impacts on ecosystem structure and
function (e.g., fire, nutrient cycling, and succession), coupled with non-climate related
threats (e.g., Covered Activities, off-road vehicle use, mining, and pollution), will impact
Covered Species and their habitats in Pima County in ways that are difficult to predict.
Indeed, no comprehensive assessment has been undertaken to determine
vulnerabilities of species in Arizona to climate change, though efforts are now
underway, including for some Covered Species.
Even with species assessments, considerable uncertainty will remain as to the severity
and timing of impacts. Rather than wait for these uncertainties to be resolved, Pima
County has taken a number of steps to plan for and mitigate the effects of climate
change and increase the resilience of the natural systems to respond to climate-induced
changes. Under the direction of STAT, Pima County applied key principles of
conservation biology as they relate to the likely challenges to species in the face of
climate change, including connectivity and heterogeneity of natural landscape features.
In response to the threat of climate change, Pima County has voluntarily taken action to
adapt to or mitigate for the effects of climate change on species and their habitats
through:


Land-use planning practices that seek to reduce the footprint of transportation
and infrastructure projects that would contribute to climate-changing
greenhouse gas emissions;



Acquisition and long-term retention of natural open space, some of which
would be otherwise be developed during the permit period. In their natural,
vegetated state, these areas act as a carbon sink relative to developed areas;



Acquisition priorities that are geographically diverse and biased toward
acquisition of riparian habitat;

85

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft



Diversity in latitude and elevation of land acquisitions that expand existing
reserves or assist in retaining ecosystem connectivity;



Infrastructure spending to make vehicle transportation more efficient and at the
same time provide opportunities for alternative modes of transportation such as
busing, biking, and walking;



Adoption of Sustainability Initiative that supports sustainable development;
green building design; use of effluent to sustain river flow and riparian and
aquatic resources; and the pursuit of alternative energy sources;



Identification of ecological refugia (riparian areas, talus, limestone) as
conservation targets;



Sponsorship of NRCS drought assistance to achieve temporary reductions in
stocking rates on ranches not owned or managed by Pima County;



Modifications of stock-watering systems to provide safer and more lasting
access to water for wildlife;



Buffelgrass management in County preserves and along County roadways;

Pima County believes that these and future MSCP-related planning and on-the-ground
efforts will contribute to (1) a greater reduction in the emissions of greenhouse gases
than would take place if the MSCP is not been implemented, (2) carbon storage in
natural and restored environments, and (3) hands-on efforts to assist the persistence of
at-risk species from climate change. Planning efforts to mitigate for the effects of
climate change on Covered Species will also take place in coordination with the local
scientific community. Pursuant to the advice of the Science Technical Advisory Team,
Pima County will evaluate, at ten-year periods, adequacy of ongoing activities to
observed changes in ecosystem conditions, and examine whether these or other
measures might be more effective in maintaining ecosystem structure and function.
7.2.2

Management response to Changed Circumstances

Pima County believes that the proposed management and monitoring measures to be
funded by Pima County will be effective to conserve the Covered Species and their
habitats within the mitigation lands. However, conditions within the Permit Area, the
status of Covered Species’ habitat, and the population status of individual species will
change over time (i.e., are Changed Circumstances). The proposed monitoring
program will be important to determine the effectiveness of the proposed conservation
measures and to determine if additional management actions are necessary. If
additional actions are warranted, an adaptive management or responsive management
action framework (See Chapter 6 and Table 7.1 for more information) will be used to
address the Changed Circumstances. For potential responses above and beyond those
listed in Table 7.1., Pima County will work with the FWS on the best approach to dealing
with the Changed Circumstance, at the discretion of Pima County and in consultation
with the USFWS.

86

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

In addition to the specific potential responses identified in Table 7.1, Pima County and
the appropriate State and Federal agencies, along with input from the academic
community, may develop an expedited analysis to determine the appropriate
management responses for the conservation target (e.g., species, habitats, or key
areas). If specific management strategies have been developed previously for such
targets or circumstances, those strategies would be reviewed in light of the changed
circumstances. Development of management and monitoring protocols for the targets
or circumstances would be a priority where such protocols do not exist.
The outcome of these analyses will be the development of appropriate response
measures to minimize—to the extent practicable—the occurrence of adverse effects
resulting from the changed circumstances. The response measures would then be
implemented. Ongoing management activities are likely to continue until new measures
derived from the analyses are developed. However, in consultation with the USFWS,
measures could be promptly implemented to minimize adverse effects prior to
completion of the analysis, to the extent feasible.

7.3

Unforeseen Circumstances

For the purposes of this Pima County MSCP, “Unforeseen Circumstances” are any
events that could not reasonably have been anticipated by Pima County and the
USFWS at the time of the HCP’s negotiation and development, and that result in a
substantial and adverse change in the status of the Covered Species.
Table 7.2 lists potential Unforeseen Circumstances for the Pima County Section 10
permit. During the 30-year permit period, the USFWS may determine that an event
constitutes an unforeseen circumstance. To do this, the USFWS will consider—but not
be limited to—the level of knowledge about the affected species and the degree of
specificity of the species’ conservation program under the Pima County MSCP. The
USFWS will also consider whether or not failure to adopt additional conservation
measures would appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the
affected species in the wild.
7.3.1

Procedure for Determining Occurrence of Unforeseen Circumstances

Prior to making a determination regarding the occurrence of any unforeseen
circumstance, the USFWS shall initiate the following steps:
Identification of Problem. The USFWS shall provide written notice to Pima County,
together with a detailed statement of the facts, regarding the Unforeseen
Circumstance involved, the anticipated impact on the Covered Species and its
habitat, and all information and data that supports the allegation. In addition, the
notice shall include any proposed conservation measure(s) that is/are likely to
effectively address the unforeseen circumstance, an estimate of the cost of

87

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Table 7.2. Example of Unforeseen Circumstances, their impact on the Covered
Species and/or habitat, and potential responses by Pima County that may warrant
contingency efforts or funds from the USFWS.
Circumstance/Scenario
Weapons of mass destruction affect
the urbanized area, causing social
breakdown; warfare along
international border extends into
biologically sensitive areas
Massive internal or external
population shifts overwhelm public
services, causing the appearance of
shantytowns.

Potential Impacts
Potential for large-scale destruction of
Covered Species’ habitat.

Increase in landscape fragmentation,
decrease in connectivity, and possible
isolation of Covered Species populations,
influx and spread of non-indigenous
species.
Greatly reduced pumping along Santa Increase in riparian and aquatic vegetation
Cruz River allows formation of new
communities likely to have a positive effect,
intermittent and perennial stream
particularly for native fish, frogs, and other
segments at Canoa, Tucson, and
Covered Species; potential for
Marana.
contamination with invasive species.
Potential increase in invasive species.
Broad-scale poaching for
Unlikely to directly impact Covered
subsistence.
Species; indirect effects more likely.
Greatly increased reliance on
Reduced canopy cover in mesquite
mesquite as fuelwood.
savanna and mesquite forest would affect
different Covered Species differently.
Ranchers decide to shift to planting
Potential for exotic species to out-compete
and irrigating exotic grasses rather
native species and provide less suitable
than using and managing semihabitat for Covered Species; potential for
natural ecosystem.
increased wildfire risk.
Natural catastrophic events such as
To qualify as unforeseen, this circumstance
fire, drought, severe wind or water
must cause a significant and adverse effect
erosion, floods, and landslides (also upon status of Covered Species
landslides associated with
earthquakes) of a magnitude
exceeding that expected to occur
during the term of the permit ,
Establishment of new, non-native
Unlikely to directly affect Covered Species;
game animals (e.g., oryx, red or Sitka may have an indirect effect due to
deer).
transmission of disease and/or due to
competition for food sources and other
habitat elements.
Increased acid rain.
pH changes in ponds, lakes and mountain
streams which lack limy substrates,
potential loss of species and populations of
aquatic and other Covered Species.
Sustained cooling trend shortens the Gradual long-term shifts in vegetative
growing season over the permit
composition; possible decrease or die-off in
period.
species sensitive to cold (e.g., saguaro and
ironwood) and increase in extent of
montane species (juniper, oaks, pine).
Bioengineered organisms affect
Changes in species characteristics,
functioning of Covered Species
changes in ecosystem functioning or
directly or indirectly
ecosystem structures, changes in the water
and energy efficiencies of organisms.

88

Potential Responses
Support Federal efforts, with priority given to public
health, safety, and welfare.

Continue to conduct advance planning for future
growth and development; maintain strong and
adequate measures through the Pima County
Comprehensive Land Use Plan and zoning
ordinances.
Maintain strong vector and disease control monitoring
and response measures at County level; coordinate
efforts with State and Federal agencies.

Coordinate biological monitoring with AGFD and other
state and Federal Agencies.
Potential strengthening of Park Rules and increased
enforcement
Such actions will be prohibited on conserved lands
owned by Pima County or for which they hold a
conservation easement. Work with other agencies to
develop guidelines and recommendations.
None required, however Pima County may elect to
initiate habitat stabilization or to work with other
agencies cooperatively to respond.

Pima County will discourage AGFD from taking such
actions.

Incorporate water quality monitoring into management
of aquatic ecosystems.
Incorporate regional climate monitoring information
into Pima County MSCP monitoring and management
decision-making.
Support Federal efforts to detect or mitigate.

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

implementing such conservation measure(s), and the likely effects upon a) Pima
County and b) the existing plans and policies of any involved Federal or state
agencies. Pima County may also elect to identify Unforeseen Circumstances and
notify USFWS, at its discretion.
Management Response. Pima County—in consultation with the USFWS—may choose
to perform an expedited analysis of the Covered Species or its habitat affected by
the alleged unforeseen circumstance and to modify or redirect existing conservation
measures to mitigate the effects of the unforeseen circumstance, within the scope of
existing funded conservation actions. To the extent that these modified or redirected
conservation measures do not affect conservation of other species, habitats, or key
areas, this may be deemed an adequate response to the unforeseen circumstance.
If the proposed modifications or redirected conservation actions could affect the
conservation of other Covered Species or its habitat, the procedure outlined below
will be followed.
Submission of Information by Others. Pima County and/or other entities shall have a
meaningful opportunity to submit information to the USFWS and shall submit such
information to the USFWS within 60 days of the written notice as provided above.
Upon the written request of any applicant or participant, the time for submission of
this information may be extended by the USFWS, which will not be unreasonably
denied.
County Review. Within 30 days after the close of the period for submission of additional
information, Pima County shall assess: (A) the alleged unforeseen circumstances;
(B) the proposed additional conservation measure(s); (C) its effects upon the
Covered Species and its habitat and the economy and lifestyles of Pima County; and
(D) possible alternatives to the proposed additional conservation measures which
would result in the least adverse impacts upon the economy and lifestyles of Pima
County and Opt-in participants, while at the same time leading to the survival and
recovery of the affected species.
Findings. The USFWS shall have the burden of demonstrating that an unforeseen
circumstance has occurred, that such unforeseen circumstance is having or is likely
to have a significant adverse impact on the Covered Species or its habitat, and that
the proposed conservation measure(s) are appropriate. However, the USFWS would
coordinate with Pima County in evaluating whether an unforeseen circumstance has
occurred. The findings of the USFWS must be clearly documented and be based
upon the best scientific and commercial data available regarding the status and
habitat requirements of the species. In addition, based on the results of an expedited
analysis of the changed or unforeseen circumstance and the information provided by
the applicants and participants, the USFWS shall provide the justification and
approval for any reallocation of funds or resources necessary to respond to the
unforeseen circumstance within the existing commitments of Pima County under the
Pima County MSCP.

89

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

7.3.2

Response to Occurrence of Unforeseen Circumstances: No Surprises

If, after the conclusion of the process outlined above, the USFWS determines that an
Unforeseen Circumstance has occurred and (1) additional conservation measures are
required and (2) it is determined that Pima County has fully complied with the terms of
the Pima County MSCP, any proposed additional conservation measures shall not be
the responsibility of Pima County, to the extent allowed by law. This is known as “No
Surprises”. If additional expenditures are required, the USFWS or any other Federal
agency shall take additional actions that might lead to the conservation or enhancement
of a species that is being adversely affected by an unforeseen circumstance. The costs
of these additional actions shall be borne by the USFWS or any other Federal agency.
However, the USFWS agrees that, prior to undertaking or attempting to impose any
action or conservation measure, it shall consider all practical alternatives to the
proposed conservation measures and adopt only those actions or conservation
measures which would have the least effect upon the economy and lifestyle of Pima
County, while at the same time addressing the unforeseen circumstance and the
survival and recovery of the affected species and/or its habitat. The purpose of this
provision is to recognize that even in the event of unforeseen, extraordinary, or changed
circumstances, additional mitigation requirements are not imposed upon a Section 10
permittee who has fully implemented the requirements pursuant to an approved habitat
conservation plan.
If additional monitoring and conservation measures do not adequately respond to
unforeseen circumstances, the County will assist, to the extent possible, with additional
conservation efforts undertaken by the USFWS.

7.4

Additional Federal Commitments

7.4.1

Limitations on USFWS Funds

Implementation of this Pima County MSCP is subject to the requirements of the AntiDeficiency Act (31 U.S.C. §1341) and the availability of appropriated funds. Nothing in
this Pima County MSCP shall be construed to require the obligation, appropriation, or
expenditure of any funds from the U.S. Treasury. Pima County acknowledges that the
USFWS will not be required, under this Pima County MSCP, to expend any Federal
agency’s appropriated funds unless and until an authorized official of that agency
affirmatively acts to commit to such expenditures as evidenced in writing.
7.4.2

Section 7 Consultations and Conferences

Except as may be specifically provided elsewhere in this Pima County MSCP, nothing in
the Pima County MSCP is intended to apply to any activity on Federal lands or
Federally funded projects that are governed by Section 7 of the ESA. All minimization
measures that result from the authorization of incidental take pursuant to Section 7 and
contained within any biological opinion or conference report shall be generally
consistent with the minimization measures required by the Pima County MSCP.
However, nothing in this Pima County MSCP is intended to limit the USFWS from

90

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

requiring minimization in excess of that provided for in the Pima County MSCP, if the
circumstances so warrant.
7.4.3

Consideration of Pima County MSCP in Section 4 Findings

The USFWS will specifically inform Pima County of any listing proposal under Section 4
of the ESA for species in the Planning Area in writing. To the extent permitted by law,
the USFWS will consider conservation actions undertaken by Pima County in making
their determination.
7.4.4

Coordinating Requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act with
the MSCP

USFWS actions require compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA), which requires the Federal agency take into account the
effects of the undertaking on historic properties eligible to or listed in the National
Register of Historic Places, consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer and
affected parties, and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable
opportunity to comment. Both the NHPA and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
encourage coordination in the implementation of the two laws and their regulations.
Compliance with Section 106 is regulated by 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
800 and requires that Federal agencies follow a compliance process to fulfill their
obligations under the NHPA. The USFWS is currently working with Pima County to
finalize this MSCP and the Service will consult and coordinate with tribal groups, the
State Historic Preservation Office, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Pima
County, and other parties as part of the consultation process. The consultation will be
completed prior to—or concurrent with—the issuance of the Pima County MSCP
Section 10 permit, thus providing USFWS compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA for
this undertaking.

7.5

New or Proposed Listings of Uncovered Species and Increased
Populations of Listed but Uncovered Species: Permit
Amendment

A new ESA listing or designation of Critical habitat of a species not covered by this
Pima County MSCP may constitute a Changed Circumstance. If the new circumstance
increases the risk of incidental take, Pima County may wish to amend the permit.
Increases of populations or geographic distribution of listed species not covered by the
Pima County MSCP, for example additional species of talus snail (Sonorella spp.)
jaguar (Panthera onca), ocelot (Leopardus pardalis), or Mexican grey wolf (Canis lupus
baileyi), may also trigger Pima County to request a permit amendment, to the extent
that the likelihood of incidental take from otherwise lawful activities covered by the plan
is no longer negligible.
The USFWS shall immediately notify the County upon becoming aware of these
situations. Upon receipt of notice of the potential listing of an uncovered species, Pima

91

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

County may—but is not required to—enter into negotiations with the USFWS regarding
necessary modifications, if any, to the Pima County MSCP. An amendment to the
Federal permit would be required to cover the species. If Pima County elects to pursue
an amendment of the applicable permit, the USFWS will provide technical assistance to
Pima County in identifying any modifications to the Pima County MSCP that may be
necessary.
In determining whether any further conservation or mitigation measures are required in
order to amend the affected permit to authorize incidental take of such species, the
USFWS shall take into account the conservation and mitigation measures already
provided in the Pima County MSCP and cooperate with Pima County to minimize the
adverse effects of the listing of such uncovered species on the Covered Activities
consistent with Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA, as required by the Implementing
Agreement.
In the case of an unlisted species that is proposed or petitioned, and is found to be
warranted for protection under the ESA, the USFWS shall use its best efforts to identify
any necessary measures to avoid the likelihood of jeopardy to or incidental take of the
uncovered species (“no take/no jeopardy” measures).

92

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

8

FUNDING MECHANISMS AND COMMITMENTS

Pima County commits to funding the implementation of the Pima County MSCP by
securing and/or pursuing a variety of funding sources described in this chapter.
Funding will be used to carry out acquisition, management, and monitoring elements of
the Pima County MSCP including, but not limited to:

8.1



New land acquisitions and other similar protections;



Creation of mitigation banks;



Management and monitoring of mitigation lands and associated conservation
targets such as species;



Contingency funding for private property compensation for takings pursuant to
U.S. or Arizona constitutions;



Contingency funding for changed circumstances;



Periodic independent review; and



Administration.

Summary of MSCP Costs

The estimated cost for administration, management, and monitoring of the Pima County
MSCP for the first 10 years of the permit is, at a minimum, approximately $41 million
with increases over the subsequent 20 years due to inflation (Table 8.1). Most of these
costs are already incorporated into existing programs. Estimated costs are based on a
range of actual administration and land management costs, as experienced during the
current, non-regulatory implementation of the plan. In the first five years of the program,
the percentage of costs from the monitoring program, which would be the only new
program component, will be approximately 17% of the total program cost (Figure 8.1).
That percentage tops out at approximately 30% of the total program cost after year five.
Beyond year five, program costs increase due to inflation.
Land Acquisition Administration. There are no future land acquisitions that are
contingent solely on issuance of the Section 10 permit so no land acquisition cost is
shown on Table 8.1. The costs shown are for staff administration of future acquisition
programs that might provide mitigation lands, and any related developer or
Intergovernmental Agreements. These costs accrue to the County Administrator’s
Office at present and are estimated to decline after the fifth year of the program due to
less bond acquisition activity.
County-controlled Mitigation Lands Management. Management of mitigation lands is
currently funded at approximately $1.8 million per year (Table 8.1). Future estimates
are tiered to the level of stewardship provided at each site. Active management would

93

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Table 8.1. Estimated annual cost, in thousands of dollars, for Pima County to carry out Section 10 permit
activities for Permit Phase I (Permit Years 1-10). Costs for managing the land acquisition program are included,
but not the purchase price and associated due diligence costs. Estimated costs are indexed to inflation (2.8%;
mean from 2000-2010) and Permit Year 1 estimates are based on 2009 costs, plus one year of inflation. Employee
related expenses ("M1"; 28.8%), overhead ("M3"; 28.0% unless otherwise noted), and other expenses such as
equipment and supplies are included in estimates. Salary increases for performance are not included.
Compliance and effectiveness monitoring costs are the only costs that are in addition to the County's current
MSCP activities. Pima County Departments/Divisions Acronyms: NRPR = Natural Resources, Parks and
Recreation; OSC = Office of Sustainability and Conservation; RFCD = Regional Flood Control District.
Permit Year

Permit
Phase 1
Department/ Division
Function
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Administration
Land acquisition administration a
23
49
51
54
57
59
29
31
32
46
$431
Development Servicesb
Planning and zoning
255
262
269
277
285
293
301
309
318
327
$2,896
Communications
Report editing, design, and production
06
06
07
07
07
07
07
07
08
08
$70
Information Technology
GIS services
72
74
76
78
80
83
85
87
90
92
$817
NRPR
Mitigation lands managementc
1,829
1,880
1,933
1,987
2,042
2,100
2,158
2,219
2,281
2,345
$20,773
OSC
Compliance and effectiveness monitoring
579
706
795
1,091
1,253
1,288
1,324
1,361
1,399
1,438
$11,232
RFCD
Riparian Ordinance enforcementd
279
286
294
303
311
320
329
338
347
357
$3,164
Sheriff
Law enforcemente
124
128
131
135
139
143
147
151
155
159
$1,413
Transportation
Compliance and roadway designf
57
58
60
61
63
65
67
69
71
72
$642
Totals
$3,223 $3,450 $3,616 $3,993 $4,237 $4,356 $4,446 $4,572 $4,700 $4,845
$41,440
a Staff time will be devoted to future bond elections and acquisition activities. Budgeted amounts include time for Real Property and County Attorneys for acquisition activities; those costs are not
accounted for in purchase (i.e., Due Diligence) costs.
b Overhead = 39%. Most of the work is related to implementing the County Comprehensive Plan and Board of Supervisors policies related to development.
c Budget is likely to increase as number of properties under management increases, which is not reflected in these estimates. These figures excludes non-mitigation related programs within the
Natural Resource Division of NRPR (e.g., environmental education) and management of non-committed lands (e.g., Tucson Mountain Park, Agua Caliente Park, etc.).
d Includes $10,000 per year paid to Pima Association of Governments for work primarily performed at Cienega Creek Preserve. Overhead = 45%.
e Costs for patrolling mitigation properties.
f Excludes compliance for Section 404 or the Clean Water Act.

94

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Table 8.1 cont.
Permit Year
Department/
Division
Function
11
12
Administration
Land acquisition administration
47
49
Development
Planning and zoning
336
345
Communications
Report editing, design, and production
08
08
Information
GIS services
95
98
NRPR
Mitigation lands management
2,410
2,478
Compliance and effectiveness
OSC
1,478
1,520
RFCD
Land mgt and Ordinance enforcement
367
377
Sheriff
Law enforcement
164
169
Transportation
Compliance and roadway design
75
77
Totalsa
$4,981
$5,120
a Higher costs per year, as compared to previous Permit Years, is due to inflation.

13
50
355
09
100
2,547
1,562
388
173
79
$5,264

14
52
365
09
103
2,619
1,606
399
178
81
$5,411

15
53
375
09
106
2,692
1,651
410
183
83
$5,563

16
54
386
09
109
2,767
1,697
422
188
86
$5,718

17
56
397
10
112
2,845
1,745
433
193
88
$5,878

18
58
408
10
115
2,925
1,793
445
199
90
$6,043

19
59
419
10
118
3,006
1,844
458
204
93
$6,212

20
61
431
10
122
3,091
1,895
471
210
96
$6,386

Permit
Phase II
$539
$3,817
$92
$1,077
$27,380
$16,791
$4,171
$1,862
$846
$56,576

27
74
523
13
148
3,750
2,300
571
255
116
$7,748

28
76
537
13
152
3,855
2,364
587
262
119
$7,965

29
78
552
13
156
3,963
2,430
604
270
123
$8,188

30
80
568
14
160
4,074
2,498
621
277
126
$8,417

Permit
Phase III
$710
$5,031
$122
$1,420
$36,088
$22,132
$5,497
$2,455
$1,116
$74,570

Table 8.1 cont.
Permit Year
Department/
Division
Administration
Development
Communications
Information
NRPR
OSC
RFCD
Sheriff

Function
Land acquisition administration
Planning and ordinance revisions
Report editing, design, and production
GIS services
Mitigation lands management
Compliance and effectiveness

21
22
63
64
443
455
11
11
125
129
3,177
3,266
1,948
2,003
Land mgt. and Ordinance enforcement
484
498
Law enforcement
216
222
Transportation
Compliance and roadway design
98
101
Totalsa
$6,565
$6,749
a Higher costs per year, as compared to previous Permit Years, is due to inflation.

23
66
468
11
132
3,358
2,059
511
228
104
$6,938

95

24
68
481
12
136
3,452
2,117
526
235
107
$7,132

25
70
495
12
140
3,548
2,176
541
241
110
$7,332

26
72
508
12
144
3,648
2,237
556
248
113
$7,537

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Annual Program Cost in Millions $

5
Existing Costs
New Costs
4

3

2

1

0
1

2

3

4

5

Year

Figure 8.1. Most of the costs of administering the MSCP (excluding purchase and lease of
mitigation lands) are currently paid for by way of Pima County’s commitment to existing
programs. New costs will be for the ecological monitoring program, which increases during the
first five years after permit issuance to allow for the program to gain capacity. Increases in
program costs after year 5 are due to inflation.

include those used for public recreation, conservation or cultural resource education, or
have portions of the property that require more intensive biological management and/or
enhancements. Third party management occurs when there is day-to-day management
through a contractual agreement. On these lands, protection of conservation values is
the primary purpose, but other activities such as grazing and recreation may be allowed.
Most of the ranch lands, except A7, are managed primarily through third party
agreements. The actual costs of third-party management have varied from $5,000 to
$15,000 per agreement approved by the Board of Supervisors, but $10,000 per
agreement is assumed for the purpose of projections.
Monitoring. Future costs include surveys, mapping, data collection, data management
and analysis, and reporting. As noted in Chapter 6, the proposed monitoring program
will be phased in over the first five years, from an estimated cost of approximately
$579,000 in Year 1 to $1.2 million by Year 5, at which time the annual cost is expected
to increase by the rate of inflation.
Compliance Monitoring. These costs include compliance data management,
compliance and effectiveness monitoring, reporting, permit negotiation, and
administration of the private lands coverage. It also includes holding stakeholder and
advisory committee meetings.

96

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Implementation of avoidance and minimization measures for the private sector.
Regional Flood Control District, Development Services, and Department of
Transportation are charged with the responsibility of ensuring that Covered Activities
are complying with the terms of the Section 10 permit through administration of various
ordinances listed in Appendix E. These are ongoing, funded costs. Together they are
expected to cost approximately $575,000 per year.
8.1.1

Pima County Sheriff’s Department

Law enforcement is provided by the Pima County Sherriff’s Department, which has
assigned various parks and preserves to a special parks enforcement unit. Funding
comes out of the general fund budget allocations to the County Sheriff. Additional law
enforcement on County parks can occur via peace officers in Arizona Game and Fish
Department or others, without cost to Pima County.

8.2

Assured Funding Mechanisms

Pima County will ensure that adequate funding will be available to implement the
acquisition, management, and monitoring activities identified in this MSCP. This section
highlights the mechanisms for achieving adequate and consistent funding.
8.2.1

General Funds

Pima County’s General Fund will be the primary fund that already funds and will
continue to pay for the ongoing responsibilities related to management and monitoring
of mitigation land. Until or unless the other sources of funding identified in this section
(Assured Funding) are realized, the General Fund will cover the cost of the County’s
commitments under this MSCP. The General fund comes from the primary tax rate on
property.
All costs in Table 8.1, except those allocated to Pima County Regional Flood Control
District (RFCD), and a portion of those described below as private sector costs will be
derived from the County general fund. If other sources of funding become available,
they may be used to reduce the general fund share. Projected costs identified in Table
8.1 are based on existing costs except for the new monitoring program. The most
significant existing commitment from the General Fund, as it relates to this MSCP, is the
Natural Resource Division within the Natural Resources, Parks, and Recreation
Department, which has approximately 12 personnel to manage most County-controlled
mitigation lands, excluding trails crews and those assigned to Tucson Mountain Park
and Agua Caliente Park (i.e., non-mitigation lands). Positions include rangeland staff,
open-space maintenance and operation staff, and natural resource staff. The County
may increase the amount of the designated open space line-item budget as the County
budget permits and such increases will be proportionate to the size, distribution, and
particular needs of the lands acquired.

97

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

8.2.2

General Obligation Bonds

Voter-approved bonds have been the primary assured funding mechanism for purchase
of mitigation lands. Pima County has spent approximately $159 million since June 2004
on the acquisition of approximately 175,000 acres of mitigation lands (approximately
48,000 acres of fee-simple lands and 127,000 acres of lease lands; Table 8.2; see Fig.
4.1). The bonds used to purchase and lease these lands are paid back over time with
secondary property taxes levied by Pima County, not RFCD.
8.2.3

Flood Control District Tax Levy

Flood Control District operating funds, derived from a secondary property tax authorized
under Title 48 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, are currently used to fund management
and monitoring of flood-prone lands, as shown in Table 8.1. Some of these lands will
be used as mitigation land under the Section 10 permit. Ongoing funded activities
include fencing, signage and development of management plans. Once acquired, the
RFCD ensures the property is secured, cleared of hazards, and managed, maintained
and (if necessary) restored to the open-space character appropriate for the property.
The funds may be used to demolish structures in the floodplain. In addition, these funds
are used to manage invasive plants, conduct resource surveys, and to fund water
resource monitoring on acquired lands. District funds are also used to avoid, minimize,
and mitigate impacts on riparian areas through administration of the Riparian Habitat
provisions of the RFCD’s Ordinance. Projected costs are based on current
expenditures for management, monitoring and ordinance enforcement. About 13,000
acres of the current lands proposed for mitigation under the MSCP are RFCD-owned
lands.
8.2.4

Private Sector Funding for Mitigation and Minimization of Habitat Loss

Pima County will collect an application fee, at the minimum, from Participants who elect
coverage under the Opt-in Provisions. A monitoring fee will be assessed of those
whose development provides Mitigation Land in accordance with the Opt-in Provisions;
this fee is to defray the County’s costs associated with aerial monitoring of those areas.
The private sector also bears costs associated with the avoidance and minimization
practices exercised through compliance with Pima County Code requirements (e.g.,
Native Plant Preservation Ordinance, Watercourse and Riparian Protection and
Mitigation Requirements, Outdoor Lighting Code, etc.) and implementation of rezoning
conditions that require Open Space Set-Asides for CLS compliance. This includes
maintaining the undeveloped nature of any set-asides associated with native plants and
riparian habitat. These costs, however, are not considered assured funding by the
USFWS.

98

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Table 8.2. Properties acquired since June 2004 that will be used to help fulfill the
mitigation obligations for the Pima County MSCP.
Acres
Acquisition
Cost ($)b
Property Name
Fee simple
Leasea
Sweetwater Preserve
695
11,733,653
Jacobs Trust
80
601,336
A-7 Ranch
6,828
33,000
2,041,933
Baker
155
226,342
Doucette
21
569,608
Bee
120
60,873
Mordka
40
20,265
Bar V Ranch
1,763
12,000
8,189,228
King 98 Ranch
1,034
3,000
2,102,921
Rancho Seco
9,574
27,000
18,503,948
Madera Highlands
366
385,733
Carpenter Ranch
360
1,100,000
Berard
7
81,792
Canoa Ranch
33
1,801,106
Poteet
83
275,820
Heater
50
991,743
Hiett
25
721,863
Selective Marketing
10
92,372
Matesich
4
85,586
Pacheco
20
241,010
Serr
10
94,776
Belvedere
72
615,972
Hyntington
4
72,163
Firkins
1
30,987
Cates
39
132,957
Nuñez
19
68,502
South Wilmot LLC
36
112,690
Knez
80
240,967
Six Bar Ranch
3,330
9,000
11,525,322
Des Rochers
19
294,028
Buckelew Farms
505
2,200
5,080,467
Route 606
22
241,134
Canoa Ranch Phase II
52
1,200,581
Amadon
39
122,257
Chess
37
124,865
Linda Vista/Patrick
9
451,561
Reid Property
3
257,500
Tang Property
40
2,356,417
Continental Ranch Development LLC
15
750,448
Diamond Bell Ranch
191
30,600
897,730
Cochie Canyon Property
290
2,901,044
Habitat for Humanity
80
1,002,832
Sopori Ranch Phase 1
4,135
10,480
18,600,000
Tumamoc
320
4,700,000
Marley Phase 1
6,337
20,006,112
Empirita/Hartman/Cortaro
2,746
12,010,000
Clyne
800
4,900,000
Sands Ranch
5,040
21,000,000
Buehman Canyon
2,286
40,000
Total
47,775
127,280
$159,658,444
a Lease acres include State Trust, U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management lands.
Total leased acres differs from Table 4.3 because U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau of Land
Management lands are not being used for mitigation.
b Does not include Due Diligence costs, which has averaged 1.9% of the total expenditures.

99

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

8.2.5

Development Agreements

The following are agreements that have been made since the adoption of the County’s
Comprehensive Land Use Plan update (2001). Some of these projects will provide
funding for management of mitigation lands.


Starr Pass Marriott, adjacent to Tucson Mountain Park, provides funding from
hotel sales to Pima County Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation
Department. During FY 12/13, the fund produced $350,000. These funds are
included in the NRPR row in Table 8.1.The funds are administered with input
from an advisory board and are used to support management of lands near the
Tucson Mountain Park and buffelgrass management. In the future, these funds
are expected to increase, and may support additional mitigation land acquisition
in the vicinity of the Tucson Mountains.The Stone Canyon development
agreement provided for Mitigation Land set-asides along Big Wash and Honey
Bee Wash, two Important Riparian Areas in the CLS. The agreement also
funded rehabilitation of former farm fields along Big Wash. Post-construction
maintenance and monitoring of the Big Wash Xeroriparian Project on County
Flood Control District land is being privately funded. This restored land would
be used for mitigation under the MSCP.

8.3

Potential Funding Mechanisms

8.3.1

Future Open-space Bonds

Pima County is likely to continue to use bonds to acquire open space and floodprone
lands. In 2004, voters approved $174.3 million in open space bond funds, which
included $112 million for purchasing lands that we prepared to commit to conservation
as mitigation credit under the Section 10 Permit. Voters authorized additional funding in
1997. Pima County Regional Flood Control District expended almost all of its $5 million
in general obligation bonds for acquiring flood-prone lands. Bond funds are also used
prior to or immediately after the purchase of lands as part of the due diligence process.
Here the focus is on establishing boundaries of the new acquisitions; and identifying,
investigating, and securing imminent hazards such as open wells or shafts.
Because past approval rating of open space general revenue bonds by Pima County
citizens has been high, it is anticipated that voters will approve at least one future openspace or floodprone bond election during the 30-year term of the permit. New land
acquisitions may be eligible as mitigation credit under the terms of this MSCP. Nothing
in the MSCP requires that Pima County acquire additional land, although failure to do so
could lead to a shortfall in mitigation acreage and thus preclude extending the benefits
of the Section10 permit to additional development activities.
8.3.2

Flood Control District Tax

Pima County will continue to use, from time to time, the RFCD taxing authority to
acquire valued floodprone land, riparian habitat, and water rights. To accomplish this,
the RFCD will allocate its line-item budget for this Capital Improvement Program project

100

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

with flood control tax levy funds as economic conditions allow, subject to Board
approval.
8.3.3

Donations, Dedications, and Land Exchanges

Pima County has and will continue to receive donations and voluntary dedications of
private property. We anticipate that some of the donations will qualify as mitigation
lands. Dedications will continue to occur through subdivision plans and development
plats. Some of these dedications may receive permanent protection as mitigation lands.
Pima County has and will continue to exchange lands with other entities including
municipalities, Bureau of Land Management and private property owners. Some of the
lands received through land exchanges may later be permanently protected as
mitigation lands.
8.3.4

Funding Regional Transportation Improvements to Reduce Fragmentation

In 2006, the Regional Transportation Authority was given voter approval for $45 million
for improving biological connectivity under and over new roads and highways and for
retrofitting older roads and highways throughout eastern Pima County. Funding will
also be used to assess the efficacy of these measures and to investigate the general
impacts of roads on wildlife populations. These funds will help leverage other funds,
such as Federal Highway Administration funds. The amount of money applicable to the
Permit Area is not available at this time.
8.3.5

Permit Fees

Permit fees taken in by the Development Services Department and the Regional Flood
Control District provide funding to implement and enforce the requirements in the Pima
County Zoning Code and the Water Course and Riparian Habitat Protection and
Mitigation Requirements that generate Open Space Set Asides on private properties.
The Development Services Department is also responsible for implementing the
Comprehensive Plan Regional Environmental Policies that result in Open Space Set
Asides.

8.4

Development Agreements

Development agreements of the types identified in Section 8.2 can provide additional
funds and resources for the acquisition of mitigation lands and for management and
monitoring. There is one development agreement already in place that could potentially
be used for funding NRPR operational costs: the Walmart Enhancement Contributions
(Docket 12939, Page 7309) will be derived from sales at a yet-to-be built Walmart store
on Ajo Way and Kinney Road. Funds are to be used for transportation, natural resource
management issues, and mitigation in proximity of Tucson Mountain Park .

101

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

8.5

Additional Potential Funding Sources

8.5.1

Other NRPR Sources

A special revenue fund will be established for the ranch conservation program
specifically. This fund will receive donations and revenue from material sales. Countyowned ranches have products and materials that if sold, would be placed into this fund.
8.5.2

State Grants

Heritage Fund. Pima County has received funds from AGFD for allowing recreational
access onto County lease lands, and the County has received Heritage Funds for
various projects and will continue to submit grant requests for Heritage and other AGFD
programs. Pima County will request that the Arizona legislature abide by the will of the
voters when establishing the Heritage Fund in 1990 (Arizona Revised Statues §5-22),
and maintain the Heritage Fund as dedicated funding for the purposes for which it was
established.
Other funding sources that may be used to supplement acquisition, management,
monitoring, research or voluntary enhancement activities include:

8.5.3



Arizona Water Protection Fund;



Arizona Water Quality Grants;



Arizona Preserve Initiative.



Public lotteries
Federal Line-item Appropriations

Pima County will continue to encourage Congressional Representatives to pursue lineitem appropriations to support partnerships and other efforts (excluding mitigation) that
contribute to the goals of the Pima County MSCP.
8.5.4

Section 6 Grants: Federal

Pima County will continue to pursue Section 6 grants that are a part of the Cooperative
Endangered Species Conservation Fund. This grant opportunity provides funding to
States and Territories for species and habitat conservation actions on non-Federal
lands. Funded activities include land acquisition, habitat restoration, species status
surveys, public education and outreach, captive propagation and reintroduction, nesting
surveys, genetic studies, and development of management plans. Section 6 grants are
not allowed to be used for mitigation purposes, but nevertheless can be an invaluable
tool for further the conservation goals of the Pima County MSCP. Pima County has
applied for and received Section 6 planning and acquisition grants from the USFWS to
acquire properties and, most recently, to provide assistance to develop the monitoring
program.

102

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

8.5.5

Other Federal Grants

Pima County has obtained and completed projects using U.S. Department of Agriculture
Wildlife Habitat Improvement Project grants to build wildlife waters, re-introduce
species, restrict access to bat roosts and fence riparian areas appropriately. Pima
County has cooperated with U. S. Bureau of Land Management on several grant
sources to fence riparian areas and clean up trash from undocumented migrants. Pima
County will continue to pursue Federal funding to support non-mitigation activities from
sources such as:


Department of the Interior,



Department of Agriculture,



Department of Defense,



The Land and Water Conservation Fund,



National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Challenge Grants,



Applicable Farm Bill funding,



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),



Other Federal programs.

103

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

9

REPORTING AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

9.1

Reporting

9.1.1

Annual Reporting

Pima County will prepare and submit an annual report to the USFWS for the purpose of
permit compliance. This annual report will be the primary document in support of
USFWS-required status reports for permit continuance. The primary focus of the report
will be to quantify impacts of Covered Activities, acres of mitigation lands and their
location by way of the mitigation categories (Outside CLS, Biological Core Management
Area, Multiple Use Management Area, and Important Riparian Area). This information
will also be provided to the USFWS in ways that will assist their regional conservation
efforts, for example, information can be arranged by vegetation type or some other
ecologically meaningful units. Maps will be included that show the locations and
configuration of areas where incidental take has occurred and where mitigation has
been provided.
9.1.1.1 Reporting Habitat Loss
Within the Permit Area, habitat loss for each Covered Species will be reported by the
Office of Sustainability and Conservation or other entity within the County. Habitat loss
will be quantified by comparing the impacts (in acres) from Covered Activities outside
the PAG 2008 built environment to acres of modeled habitat or PCA for each Covered
Species. The location and amount of habitat loss relative to CLS mitigation categories
will also be compared to the amount of mitigation categories provided for on mitigation
lands. After the initial year, annual reports will, to the extent possible, present a
cumulative analysis, as well as an analysis that calls out this information for the current
year.
Variations in this annual analysis may occur as the result of factors such as (1) changes
to the geographic extent of the Permit Area because of annexations of land into
incorporated jurisdictions; and (2) modifications to modeled habitat or PCAs which
reflect improved knowledge about any Covered Species or Changed Circumstance. It
is important to note that the number of acres of take versus the number of acres of land
that Pima County is putting toward mitigation in any given year may not reach the
minimum 1:1 equivalency (see Section 4.4) for each Covered Species. This is because
the amount of mitigation each year will be calculated based on the CLS. Species-byspecies equivalency will be evaluated at the 10-year review.
9.1.1.2 Reporting Lease Lands that Contribute to Mitigation
Pima County is proposing the use of lease lands in partial fulfillment of our mitigation
requirements, as outlined in Section 4.4.1 of this report. Unlike fee-simple lands upon
which we will place conservation easements to fulfill our mitigation requirements, Pima
County cannot commit lease lands to conservation in perpetuity. Therefore, for each
annual report, Pima County will identify the acreage and location of lease lands that

104

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

contributed to mitigation during that time period, if any. For example, if Pima County
has a mitigation requirement of 3,000 acres, we may choose to commit 2,000 acres of
fee-simple lands. Based on the partial credit of lease lands (25%), Pima County would
identify 4,000 acres of lease land to mitigate for the remaining 1,000 acres. Over the
years, the acreage and location of mitigation lease land could be subject to change as
grazing leases are relinquished or sold, or fee-simple land is committed in their place. It
is also likely that these lease lands could be maintained as mitigation lands for the
duration of the permit.
9.1.1.3 Other Information Included in Annual Reports
In addition to lethal take and habitat loss analyses, the following information will be
included in annual reports:
Expenditures and Funding:


Amount spent on acquisition, management, and monitoring;



New funding sources and mechanisms identified or secured.

Covered Species:


Species enhancement areas and activities;



Changed or unusual circumstances affecting a covered species;



Biological certificates of inclusion issued;

Monitoring:


Activity summary and draft findings update;



Any reports produced during that year related to the summary or synthesis of
monitoring data;



Changes to monitoring protocols;

Parks and Preserves:


Measures to increase legal protection (Conservation easements/restrictive
covenants etc.);



Summary of management actions taken during that year that might impact
Covered Species and/or their habitat;



Identification of leased ranch lands used as mitigation;



Recommendations for future activities, adjustments, and needs;



Identification of changed or unusual circumstances and responses affecting
parks or preserves, if not already discussed under species;

Partnership Activities:


Activity summary and draft findings update.

105

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

9.1.2

Decennial Reporting

At the end of each of the three permit phases, Pima County will submit a report to the
USFWS containing a complete accounting of habitat acreage impacted by Covered
Activities and mitigated during the previous 10-year phase. Similar to the annual
reporting, this accounting will specify the number of acres mitigated and impacted by
CLS category and, most importantly, by each Covered Species. The report will also
describe how mitigation is proceeding relative to impacts and how the preserve
assembly is consistent with the biological goals and preserve design criteria established
by STAT (i.e. conservation of Priority Conservation Areas, potential habitat, and
vegetative communities). Prior to the end of each permit phase, Pima County will
initiate an analysis of the levels of conservation and mitigation achieved under the
permit, which will be subject to peer review.
9.1.3

Comparison of Annual and Decennial Reports

To summarize, the annual report and the decennial report vary in function, scope, focus,
and intended use (Table 9.1). The annual report will provide a cumulative snapshot view
of annual changes, identify necessary adjustments, and document compliance. The
decennial report is intended to evaluate progress, identify potential need for change,
and set the goals and direction for subsequent permit phases. The annual report will
still be submitted during years in which a decennial report is also provided.

Table 9.1. Comparison of annual and decennial reports.
Function
Effectiveness
Monitoring
Breadth of
Geographic Scope

Annual Report
Annual or as needed depending on
parameter
Pima County’s Permit Area

Focus of Effort

Trends reporting (as appropriate). Data and
tracking. Evaluate progress, level of
success, and compliance
Pima County & USFWS

Participation
Reviewing Entities
Primary display
tools
Desired Outcome

Pima County staff, Science Commission,
and USFWS
Aerial photographs, satellite imagery, GIS,
monitoring data tables, Pima County
departmental information
Determination that conservation and
mitigation levels are staying ahead of impact
levels, and that the specific, quantitative
terms of the Section 10 permit are being met

106

Decennial Report
Determination if the goals and objectives of all parameters are
being met.
Planning Area and Permit Area in order to gain a landscape-level
understanding of biodiversity and ecosystem health in a regional
context (i.e., relationship of Pima County’s Permit Area with
adjacent jurisdictions’ conservation and development patterns)
Evaluate progress and level of success in meeting SDCP goals;
project future course of action
Pima County & USFWS; partnering entities; adjacent jurisdictions,
the general public.
Public, external review committee of scientists, and USFWS
Summaries of monitoring and management information; new
knowledge gained on conditions, trends, and needs for Covered
Species
Review and update goals for the next Permit Phase of the permit
(research, monitoring, management, acquisitions, funding,
conservation levels for CLS categories, PCAs, species’ potential
habitat). Determine if biases exist in the conservation and
acquisition program and if additional conservation measures are
needed to achieve goals. Finally, is mitigation equivalency of each
species being met?

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

9.2

Audit

Once every three or more years, as needed, the USFWS may conduct an audit of those
Covered Activities which have been implemented; all mitigation lands acquired; and all
monies received, invested, and expended on acquisition, management, and monitoring
activities.

9.3

Responsibilities of Permit Participants

9.3.1

Pima County

Pima County’s role is that of the permittee, with central responsibility of ensuring that all
requirements of the Pima County MSCP are met—most importantly that:


Any taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery
of the species;



Take is incidental;



Impacts are minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable;



Adequate funding is provided, and



Other permit requirements are met.

The responsibilities of Pima County are described further in the Implementing
Agreement (Appendix M).
9.3.2

Pima County Regional Flood Control District

The District is a co-permittee, responsible for the following:


Providing adequate funding for district responsibilities;



Cooperating in monitoring activities on District mitigation lands;



Enforcing terms of legal instruments granted by Pima County to the District to
ensure protection in perpetuity on County lands;



Granting of conservation easements or restrictive covenants on District-owned
lands identified as potential mitigation land;



Minimizing impacts and notifying County of amendments to the Floodplain and
Erosion Hazard Mitigation Ordinance as described in Table 4.1.

The responsibilities of the District are described further in the Implementing Agreement
(Appendix M).

107

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

9.3.3

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

The USFWS is responsible for ensuring National Environmental Policy Act compliance
for the Pima County MSCP and making the final determination of permit requirements
and issuance. Local and regional USFWS staff will track and monitor permit
compliance annually and decennially and may enforce permit restrictions when permit
requirements are not being met (see Appendix M). The USFWS may provide Federal
funding for the implementation of various activities that are unrelated to the mitigation
and monitoring requirements of the Pima County MSCP.
9.3.4

Private Sector

At the property owner’s discretion, Pima County will cover certain private development
activities as Permitted Activities, thereby granting coverage under the permit (see
section 3.3.1.1). The responsibilities of the private entities receiving the coverage vary
according to the Opt-in and Opt-out provisions but, collectively, include abiding by the
provisions of the Type 1 grading permit; development of the property consistent with the
subdivision plat or development plan; and maintaining allegiance to the terms of the
legally-enforceable instrument used to protect Mitigation Land within the development.
Some responsibilities pass to future property owners where terms of the legally
enforceable instrument used to protect Mitigation Land within the development are
transferred with property ownership.

9.4

Public Participation and Oversight

The public has demonstrated strong support for and involvement in the conservation of
Pima County’s natural resources throughout the development of the MSCP and SDCP.
Maintaining this public support is vital to Pima County’s ability to fulfill the commitments
made in this MSCP. This participation means that the public provides a ‘watchdog’
function to monitor Pima County’s implementation of the MSCP. Pima County will
continue to foster and welcome the public’s role in the MSCP. Examples of public
participation that Pima County intends to pursue include collaborative partnerships
(below) and public outreach. For the latter, Pima County staff will be available for
presentations at public or special interest group meetings to report on the program and
its progress. Pima County will also prepare reports and newsletters, maintain space on
Pima County’s website for MSCP information, and make use of other forms of media to
communicate the status and progress of Pima County MSCP. Ten-year reviews will
also have significant involvement by the public.
Pima County may also use interested citizens to monitor sites and collect data on the
condition of resources. At this time, Pima County will not commit to include this effort in
the MSCP, but such an effort would be in keeping with our commitment to advance the
goals of the SDCP through education, outreach, and participation.

108

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

9.4.1

Science and Technical Advisory Team (STAT)

The STAT was instrumental in the development of the SDCP and MSCP. A New STAT
will be assembled within 12 months of permit issuance for the development and
implementation of the PCEMP by:


Overseeing the implementation of the Effectiveness Monitoring and Adaptive
Management components of the Pima County MSCP including integration
among parameters;



Reviewing the annual Effectiveness Monitoring Report that summarizes work
completed during the previous year regarding monitoring species, habitat,
ecosystem, climate, and threats parameters;



Identifying and prioritizing research needs;



Providing guidance for integration with other monitoring and research efforts in
the region;



Reviewing proposed changes to protocols;



Reviewing changes to PCAs and habitat models used to measure habitat loss
and protection of Covered Species;



Recommending changes in mitigation credit for Stewardship Levels on ranch
lands;

9.5

Voluntary and Collaborative Partnership Opportunities

Pima County will continue to seek out partnership opportunities in support of
implementing the goals of the Pima County MSCP on a landscape scale, thereby
extending its effectiveness beyond the boundaries of the Permit Area. To formalize
these relationships, Pima County intends to seek formal agreements that commit
signatories to a long-term course of action and management towards fulfilling the
biological goals set forth during the preserve planning process, as reflected by the CLS.
Pima County will also foster partnerships with other local jurisdictions within and
adjacent to Pima County and will support their habitat conservation planning and
implementation efforts, particularly the HCPs of the Town of Marana and City of Tucson.
Pima County will also foster cooperation and provide resources to those partners that
contribute to the implementation of the Pima County MSCP. Pima County will foster
partnerships with the University of Arizona, Pima Community College, and public and
private schools in order to maximize effectiveness of research and education efforts
pertaining to the Pima County MSCP goals.
Pima County will pursue partnering opportunities in association with private landowners
and non-profit organizations with common conservation goals (e.g., The Nature
Conservancy of Arizona, Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, Sky Islands Alliance, Tucson
Audubon Society, Tucson Herpetological Society, the Sierra Club, Arizona Land and
Water Trust, the Sonoran Institute, and the National Wildlife Federation). Such
partnering efforts may include but are not limited to:

109

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft



Shared staffing and use of equipment;



Matching or other shared funding of land acquisitions and/or conservation
easements;



Joint efforts in management activities;



Public information, outreach, and environmental education efforts and materials;
and



Coordination and use of local contributions, including land, trusts, volunteer
support, and other in-kind services.

110

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

10

GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS

10.1

Terms

Adaptive management. A process of improving management actions through the use
of management experiments or one-time decisions to evaluate how effectively a system
operates or is managed with respect to targets or objectives.
Biological Core Management Areas. One of four CLS land type categories that are
the underpinnings of MSCP mitigation requirements. Originally identified through
development of the CLS and which denotes those areas that support high biological
diversity, as noted by the presence of modeled habitat for five or more Priority
Vulnerable Species.
Board. Referred to collectively as the Board of Supervisors for Pima County and the
Board of Directors for the Pima County Regional Flood Control District.
Cienega. A permanently or seasonally saturated “seep wetland,” dominated by sedges
and other herbaceous and woody wetland plants.
Candidate species. Plants and animals for which the USFWS has sufficient
information on their biological status and threats to propose them as endangered or
threatened under the ESA, but for which development of a listing regulation is precluded
by other higher priority listing activities.
Certificate of Inclusion (Biological). A County-issued certificate that affords
protection under Pima County’s Section 10 permit for implementation of biological
enhancements.
Changed Circumstances. “Changes in circumstances affecting a species or
geographic area covered by an HCP that can reasonably be anticipated by Plan
developers and the Service and that can be planned for (e.g., the listing of a new
species, or a fire or other natural catastrophic event in areas prone to such events)” (50
CFR §17.3). If additional conservation and mitigation measures are deemed necessary
to respond to changes in circumstances that were provided for in the HCP, the
permittee(s) will be expected to implement the measures specified in the HCP, but only
those measures and no others.
Conservation target. Species, their habitat, or other environmental feature that are the
subject of management action or concern.
County. When referring to the applicants, Pima County and Pima County Regional
Flood Control District. When referring to mitigation lands, lands managed by either of
the two applicants.
Covered Species. Subset of Priority Vulnerable Species that are proposed for
coverage under Pima County’s Section 10 permit.

111

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Critical Habitat. Once USFWS designates critical habitat for species listed as
endangered or threatened, the ESA prohibits any Federal action that would or adversely
modify the designated critical habitat. Ecosystem. A dynamic and interrelating complex
of plant and animal communities and their associated nonliving (such as physical and
chemical) environment.
Endangered species. Designation under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as
amended) which identifies an animal or plant species in danger of extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. Federal legislation that is
intended to provide a means to conserve the ecosystems upon which endangered and
threatened species depend and provide programs for the conservation of those species,
thus preventing extinction of plants and animals. Some relevant sections of ESA to this
MSCP are:
Section 4. Addresses the listing and recovery of species and designation of
critical habitat.
Section 6. Focuses on cooperation with the states and authorizes USFWS and
NOAA Fisheries to provide financial assistance to states that have entered into
cooperative agreements supporting the conservation of endangered and
threatened species.
Section 7 (a) (2). Requires Federal agencies, in consultation with USFWS
and/or National Marine Fisheries Service, to ensure that any Federal action is not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species or result in destruction or adverse modification of designated critical
habitat.
Section 9. Defines prohibited actions, including the import and export, take,
illegally taken possession of illegally taken species, transport, or sale of
endangered or threatened species.
Section 10(a). Lays out the guidelines under which a permit may be issued to
authorize prohibited activities, such as take of endangered or threatened species.
Section 10(a)(1)(A). Allows for permits for the taking of threatened or
endangered species for scientific purposes or for purposes of enhancement of
propagation or survival.
Section 10(a)(1)(B). Permit for incidental taking of threatened or endangered
species provided that a conservation plan is in place.
Exotic species. A species of plant or animal that is not native to the ecosystem in
which it is living. See Invasive Species.

112

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Federally-listed species. See under Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended,
Section 4. Also see Endangered Species and Threatened Species.
Fee simple. A term of property law where the owner has title (i.e., ownership) to the
land.
Geographic Information System (GIS). Means of digital mapping and data analysis
on computers.
Habitat. Environmental features that provide resources for species to carry out their
life-history functions.
Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). A plan that specifies (1) the impact which will likely
result from such taking (of Endangered Species); (ii) what steps the applicant will take
to minimize and mitigate such impacts, and the funding that will be available to
implement such steps; (iii) what alternative actions to such taking the applicant
considered and the reasons why such alternatives are not being utilized; and (iv) such
other measures that the Secretary of the Interior may require as being necessary or
appropriate for purposes of the plan. An HCP is required before a Section 10 permit
may be issued.
(to) harass. ESA implementing regulations define “to harass” as “intentionally or
negligently, through act or omission, create the likelihood of injury to wildlife by
annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns such as
breeding, feeding, and sheltering.”
(to) harm. ESA implementing regulations define “to harm” as to “perform an act that
kills or injures wildlife; may include significant habitat modification or degradation when
it [sic] kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns
including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.”
Hydroriparian. Community most often found where vegetation is supported by
perennial watercourses or springs.
Implementing Agreement. Specifies all terms and conditions of activities under the
Habitat Conservation Plan. By signing the Implementing Agreement, USFWS explicitly
acknowledges approval of the plan and declares that it meets the requirements of a
Habitat Conservation Plan to allow issuance of appropriate permits for target or other
named species, should those species become listed.
Important Riparian Areas. One of 4 categories of lands that are the underpinnings of
MSCP mitigation requirements. Originally identified through development of the CLS
and which denotes those riparian areas valued for their higher water availability,
vegetation density, and biological productivity. These areas are also fundamental to
preserving landscape connectivity.
Incidental take. Take that results from, but is not the purpose of, carrying out an
otherwise lawful activity. Take can be both lethal and non-lethal.

113

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Incidental take permit (also called Section 10 permit). A permit issued under
Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA to a non-Federal party undertaking an otherwise lawful
project that might result in the incidental take of an endangered or threatened species.
Application for an incidental take permit is subject to certain requirements, including
preparation by the permit applicant of a conservation plan, generally known as a HCP.
Indirect effect. An effect caused by a proposed action that takes place later in time
than the action, but is still reasonably certain to occur.
Invasive species. Organisms that invade ecosystems beyond their historical range.
Their invasion can threaten native ecosystems or commercial, agricultural, or
recreational activities dependent on these ecosystems costing the economy billions
annually.
(to) jeopardize a species. To engage in an action that reasonably would be expected,
directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and
recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or
distribution of that species.
Listed species. A species, subspecies, or distinct population segment that has been
added to the Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants.
Maeveen Marie Behan Conservation Lands System (CLS). The biological reserve
system design adopted as the Regional Environmental Element of Pima County’s 2001
Comprehensive Plan Update, and any subsequent revisions. The CLS provides the
principal basis for the selection of lands for mitigation under the permit.
Mesoriparian. Area that is supported by perennial or intermittent streams, or areas of
shallow groundwater.
Mitigation (programs/measures). Activities contributing to preserving resources and
offsetting resource loss. The primary mitigation mechanism for Pima County’s Section
10 permit is land acquisition, management and monitoring, but other methods include
species research and restoration.
Mitigation lands. Those lands, leases, or rights held by Pima County and committed
as compensation for impacts to habitat of Covered Species stemming from Covered
Activities under Pima County’s Section 10 permit. Mitigation lands are either owned or
leased by Pima County (known as Pima County preserves) or are Natural Open Space
Set Asides (see definition).
Mitigation lands, County-controlled. All Mitigation lands for which Pima County has a
property interest (i.e., ownership, conservation easement, or grazing lease). Excludes
set-asides on private lands.
Multi-species Conservation Plan. A proposal to minimize and mitigate, to the
maximum extent practical, incidental take of multiple species that may occur in the plan

114

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

area due to specified, lawful activities. Serves as Pima County’s HCP for purposes of
obtaining a Section 10 permit under the ESA.
Multiple Use Management Areas. Originally identified through development of the
CLS and which denotes those areas that support significant biological diversity, but
which do not attain the level associated with Biological Core Management Areas. They
connect large blocks of contiguous habitat and biological preserves and support high
value potential habitat for three or more Priority Vulnerable Species.
Natural open Space Set-Aside. Land that is undeveloped and retained as natural
open space through development processes and approvals. Ownership of these areas
remains with the property owner.
Non-native Species. See exotic and invasive species.
No Surprises Rule. A part of the ESA that is meant to protect the landowner if
unforeseen circumstances occur that make the landowner's efforts to prevent or
mitigate harm to a species fall short. The landowner or permittee would not be required
to set aside additional land or pay more for conservation. The federal government would
have to pay for additional protection measures
Opt-in Provision. If they so choose, any property owner who intends to develop their
property as a residential subdivision or as a non-residential plat can gain coverage
under the County’s Section 10 permit provided certain criteria are met.
Opt-out Provision. For private development-related disturbances on parcels where the
County issues a Type 1 grading permit to allow grading of 14,000 square feet or more
on a single-dwelling residential lot, a property owner can withhold permit coverage.
Participant. Those property owners who voluntarily solicit protections afforded by Pima
County’s Section 10 permit and who fulfill certain requirements.
Outside the Conservation Lands System. One of 4 categories of lands that are the
underpinnings of MSCP mitigation requirements. Generally represents those lands
within Pima County that do not have a designation under the Conservation Lands
System.
Parameter. A component of the Pima County Ecological Monitoring Program that is
measured and reported as an indicator of change. Examples of parameters include
population size of a species, number of new miles of roads, and acres of habitat
destroyed.
PAG 2008 built environment The PAG 2008 existing land use shapefile represents
July 1, 2008 land uses and residential densities in Pima County. It was developed in
2008 by Pima Association of Governments.

115

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Pima County. When referring to the proposed permit holder, the term includes Pima
County Regional Flood Control District, a separate taxing authority that is governed by
the same elected officials as Pima County.
Preserve Network (Pima County). Land owned and managed for open space
preservation, considered in the aggregate. Includes all County-controlled mitigation
lands, as well as other Pima County Preserves (e.g., Tucson Mountain Park) for which
no habitat mitigation credit is being sought.
Planning Area (MSCP). The entire 9,184 square miles of Pima County.
Priority Conservation Area. Those areas identified by species experts where
conservation is necessary for the Priority Vulnerable Species’ long-term survival.
Priority Vulnerable Species. A list of species that Pima County used early in the
development of the MSCP and SDCP; most species are thought to be in decline or
subject to one or more threats. Most PVS were considered for Section 10 permit
coverage (see Covered Species).
Proposed species. An animal or plant species that is proposed in the Federal
Register to be listed under Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act.
Recovery Contribution Areas. Sites where Pima County management efforts will
provide suitable habitat and improve habitat conditions for existing or re-established
populations of species and, at the same time, allow permitted maintenance and other
Covered Activities.
Regional Flood Control District. The Pima County Regional Flood Control District
(RFCD or District) is a separate legal entity from Pima County, and one of the two
applicants in the MSCP.
Riparian. Related to, living in, or located on the bank of a natural watercourse.
Riparian area. Area influenced by surface or subsurface water flows that are
expressed (visually) by facultative wetland or obligate wetland plant species and hydric
soils.
Safe Harbor Agreement. A voluntary arrangement between the USFWS (or the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and cooperating non-Federal
landowners. The main purpose is to promote voluntary management for listed species
on non-Federal property, while giving assurances to participating landowners that no
additional future regulatory restrictions will be imposed through the issuance of a
Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit under the ESA. The agreements benefit endangered and
threatened species, while giving landowners assurances related to ESA regulations.
Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. Overarching conservation plan for Pima County.
The Pima County MSCP is one element of the plan, which includes cultural resource
goals, as well as biological goals.

116

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Species Enhancement Areas. Places where populations of existing and/or reestablished populations of species will be managed by Pima County in relation to
recovery plans.
State Trust Lands. Those lands that are held in trust for the Common Schools and
other beneficiaries and whose management is overseen by the State Land Department
in accordance with the Arizona State Enabling Act of 1910, the State Constitution, and
the 1915 State Land Code.
Supplementary Population Management Areas. Sites where there is suitable habitat
for species (though populations are expendable from species recovery efforts), but
which may have the potential to contribute to recovery.
(to) Take. Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the take of threatened and endangered
species. Take means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or
collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct; may include significant habitat
modification or degradation if such actions kill or injure wildlife by significantly impairing
essential behavioral patterns including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Under Section
10(a) of the ESA, a level of take may be permitted if it is incidental to otherwise lawful
activities and a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is accepted by the USFWS.
Threatened species. Designation under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as
amended) which identifies an animal or plant species likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Unforeseen Circumstance: “changes in circumstances affecting a species or
geographic area covered by an HCP that could not reasonably have been anticipated
by plan developers and the Service at the time of the HCP’s negotiation and
development, and that result in a substantial and adverse change in the status of the
Covered Species” (50 CFR §17.3). The USFWS will not require the commitment of
additional land, water, or financial compensation or additional restrictions on the use of
land, water, or other natural resources, even upon a finding of unforeseen
circumstances, unless the permittee(s) consents. Upon a finding of unforeseen
circumstances, the USFWS will be limited to modifications within conserved habitat
areas and the HCP’s operating conservation program, unless FWS provides additional
resources to address the unforeseen circumstance.
Watershed. A region or area bounded peripherally by topographic high points and
draining ultimately to a particular watercourse or body of water.
Xeroriparian. Areas associated with intermittent water supplies and that may include
species from adjoining upland areas.

117

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

10.2

Acronyms

AGFD

Arizona Game and Fish Department

BLM

Bureau of Land Management

CIP

Capital Improvement Program

CLS

Maeveen Marie Behan Conservation Lands System

CRMP

Coordinated Resource Management Plan

ESA

Endangered Species Act (Federal)

GIS

Geographical Information System

HCP

Habitat Conservation Plan

MSCP

Multi-species Conservation Plan

PAG

Pima Association of Governments

PCA

Priority Conservation Area

PCEMP

Pima County Ecological Monitoring Program

RFCD

Pima County Regional Flood Control District

RPPA

Recreation and Public Purposes Act

SDCP

Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan

SEA

Species Enhancement Area

SL

Stewardship Level

STAT

Science Technical Advisory Team

USFWS

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

118

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

11

PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS

11.1

Preparers and Contributors of Current Draft

11.1.1 Preparers: Pima County Staff
Julia Fonseca, Brian Powell, Sherry Ruther, Neva Connolly, and Linda Mayro (Office of
Sustainability and Conservation);
Mike List (Information Technology).
Additional contributions from:


Nicole Fyffe, Diana Durazo, and Tedra Fox (County Administrator’s Office);



Lesley Lukach, Regina Nassen, Hal Gilbreath, and Neil Konigsberg (Pima
County Attorney’s Office);



Christina Biggs and Mike Stofko (Real Property Services);



Rafael Payan, Kerry Baldwin, Iris Rodden, and Megan Bell (Pima County
Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation);



Suzanne Shields, Chris Cawein, Thomas Helfrich, Carla Danforth, Marisa
Rice, Terry Hendricks, David Scalero, and Eric Shepp (Pima County Regional
Flood Control District);



Ray Brice, Clark Phillips, Mark Probstfeld, Cory Jones (Information
Technology);



Susan Beebe, Bill Singleton, Pete Corrao (Pima County Communications);



Joanne Homer and John Regan (Pima County Public Works);



Carmine deBonis, Jim Veomett, Yves Kwam, Subbhash Raval, Debbey
Marchbanks, Chris Poirier, and Tracey Gutheim (Development Services).

11.1.2 Contributors

11.2



U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Scott Richardson, Sherry Barrett, Jean
Calhoun, Jeff Servoss, Marty Tuegel, Justin Taid, Jason Douglas, Douglas
Duncan, Sarah Rinkevich, Luela Roberts, and Leila Lienesch;



Arizona Game and Fish Department: Locana de Souza, Cecilia Schmidt, and
Michael Ingraldi.

Preparers of Previous Drafts

11.2.1 Preparers: Pima County
Dr. Maeveen Marie Behan

119

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

11.2.2 Preparers: RECON Environmental Inc.
Paul Fromer, Lori Woods, Drew Taylor, Vince Martinez, Loretta Gross, Eija Blocker,
Stacey Higgins, Phil Rosen, Priscilla Titus, Susy Morales, Sean Bohac, Carianne
Funicelli, Leslie Smith, Christina Liang, Phil Rosen, Sharon Wright-Harris, and Jenny
Smeltzer.
11.2.3 Contributors of Previous Drafts
This MSCP and SDCP has been 12 years in the making and hundreds of people have
contributed to its success. Below are select individuals that played a role in shaping the
current plan:
































William Shaw, Chair of the Science and Technical Advisory Team, University of
Arizona, School of Natural Resources and the Environment
Robert Steidl, Vice-Chair of the Science and Technical Advisory Team,
University of Arizona, School of Natural Resources and the Environment
Richard Brusca, Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum
Douglas Duncan, USFWS
Mima Falk, USFWS (past member)
Natasha Kline, Saguaro National Park
Gary Nabhan, Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum (past member)
Steven Prchal, Sonoran Arthropod Studies Institute (past member)
George Ruyle, University of Arizona
Cecil Schwalbe, USGS / University of Arizona
Tom Van Devender, Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum
Michael Bean, J.D., Environmental Defense
Reed Noss, Ph.D., University of Central Florida
Laura Watchman, Defenders of Wildlife
Linwood Smith and others, EPG Consulting Group
ESI Corporation (Initial Socioeconomic Analysis)
Harris Environmental Group (Riparian Mapping)
Ken Kingsley and others, SWCA (Initial Species Accounts)
Phil Rosen, University of Arizona
Ken Abrahams, Pres/Foothills Resort Property Ltd
Neale Allen, Mountain View Homeowners Association
Bill Arnold
Peter Aronoff
F Sterling
Charles Award, Southern Lago del Oro Community
Ellen Barnes, Landowner
Dan Beckel, Andrada Property Owners Association
Robyn Benson, Lou Benson Construction Co.
Lou Benson, Lou Benson Construction Co.
Larry Berlin, Attorney/Private Property
Tim Blowers, Developer/Landowner

120

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft














































John Bordenave, Enchanted Hills Neighborhood Association
Carolyn Campbell, Coalition for the Sonoran Desert Protection Plan
Joe Cesare, Hotel Property Owner
Sue Chilton, Chilton Ranch
Sue Clark, Pima Trails Association
Ernest Cohen, Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Tucson
Hector Conde, Oro Valley Coalition
Cindy Coping, Avra Valley/Silverbell Conservation Alliance
Vicki Cox Golder, Real Estate/Golder Ranch
William Crosby, Environmental 8 Cultural Conservation Organization
Carl Davis, Silverbell Mountain Alliance
Mary Darling
Carol Duffner, NW Coalition for Responsible Development
Jonathan DuHamel, President, Tucson Chapter of People for the USA!
Ken Fleshman, GVCCC, Inc.
Heather Fox, Serrita Mining and Ranching
Richard Genser, Real Estate
Gay Lynn Goetzke, Property Rights
David Goldstein, Real Estate Developer
Bruce Gungle, Tucson Mountain Association
Trevor Hare, Sky Island Alliance
Richard Harris, McGee Ranch. Sierrita Mountain Coalition
Lynn Harris, Sierrita Mining and Ranching
Gayle Hartmann, Buffers
Deborah Hecht, Tucson Mountains Association
David Hogan, Southwest Center for Biological Diversity
Gerald Juliani, Pure Water Coalition
Patricia King, Anvil Ranch
Rob Kulakofsky, Center for Wildlife Connections
Nancy Laney, Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum
Alan Lurie, Southern Arizona Home Builders Association
Teresita Majewski, Chair, Tucson-Pima Historical Commission
Rob Marshall, The Nature Conservancy
Mitchell McClaran, University of Arizona, School of Natural Resources
Andrew McGibbon, Altar Valley Conservation Alliance
Micaela McGibbon, Altar Valley Conservation Alliance
Christine McVie, Desert Watch
Doug McVie, Landowner
John Menke, Saguaro Forest Associates
Mary Miller, Elkhorn Ranch
Chris Monson, Rocking K Development
Joe Murray, NW Coalition for Responsible Development
Jenny Neely, Defenders of Wildlife
Luther Propst, Sonoran Institute

121

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft


























Patricia Richardson, Tucson Association of Realtors
Barbara Rose, North Tucson Mountains Resource Conservation Project
Chris Sheafe, C. Sheafe Company
Victoria Sikora, Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Tucson
Quinn Simpson, Center for Environmental Ethics
Lisa Stage, Women for Sustainable Technologies
Lucy Vitale, Line by Line Editorial Services
Frances Werner
Michael Winn, Ecological Restoration/Management Associates
Carl Winters, Winters & Association
Nancy Young Wright, Buffers
Nancy Zierenberg, Wildlife Damage Review
Michael Zimet
David Godlewski, Southern Arizona Homebuilders
Priscilla Storm, Diamond Ventures
Lisa Hoskins, Becky Gordon, Metropolitan Pima Alliance
Kathleen Kennedy, Susan Shobe, Gabe Wigtail, Coalition for Sonoran Desert
Protection
Randy Serraglio, Center for Biodiversity
Matt Clark, Defender of Wildlife
Jenny Neely, Sky Island Alliance
Steve Huffman, Tucson Association of Realtors
Leslie Ethen, City of Tucson
Janine Spencer and Jennifer Christelmann, Town of Marana
David Jacobs, State Attorney General’s Office (representing State Land
Department).

122

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

12

LITERATURE CITED

Childs, M. R. 2006. Comparison of Gila topminnow and western mosquitofish as
biological control agents of mosquitoes. Western North American Naturalist
66:181-190.
Christensen, J. H., B. Hewitson, A. Busuioc, A. Chen, X. Gao, I. Held, R. Jones, R. K.
Kolli, W. T. Kwon, R. Laprise, V. M. Rueda, L. Mearns, C. G.Menendez, J.
Räisänen, A. Rinke, A. Sarr, and P. Whetton. 2007. Regional climate
projections. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Pages 847-940.
In S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor,
and H. L.Miller, editors. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Fonseca, J., and N. Connolly. 2002. Representation of vegetation communities and
Special Elements in reserve design. Report to the Pima County Board of
Supervisors for the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, Tucson, AZ.
Fonseca, J., and D. Scalero. 1999. Determining vulnerable species within Pima
County, Arizona. Report to the Pima County Board of Supervisors for the
Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, Tucson, AZ.
Lenart, M., and B. Crawford. 2007. Global warming in the Southwest: Projections,
observation, and impacts. Climate Assessment for the Southwest (CLIMAS).
The University of Arizona Tucson, AZ.
McGann and Associate Inc. 1994. Cienega Creek Natural Preserve management plan.
Prepared for the Pima County Regional Flood Control District. Tucson, AZ.
Parmesan, C. 2006. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change.
Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics 37:637-669.
Pima County. 2000a. Biological stress assessment: An overview of issues and
concerns. Report to the Pima County Board of Supervisors for the Sonoran
Desert Conservation Plan. Tucson, AZ.
Pima County. 2000b. Draft preliminary Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. Report to
the Pima County Board of Supervisors for the Sonoran Desert Conservation
Plan. Tucson, AZ.
Pima County. 2000c. Our common ground: Ranch lands in Pima County. A
conservation objective for the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. Report to the
Pima County Board of Supervisors. Tucson, AZ.
Pima County. 2000d. Potentially problematic species in Pima County: Ecological
effects and management strategies. Draft report to the Pima County Board of
Supervisors for the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. Tucson, AZ.
Pima County. 2000e. Riparian protection, management and restoration: An element of
the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. Report to the Pima County Board of
Supervisors for the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. Tucson, AZ.
Pima County. 2001a. Pima County Comprehensive Plan update. Adopted by the Pima
County Board of Supervisors on December 18, 2001. Tucson, AZ.
Pima County. 2001b. Priority Conservation Areas. Report to the Pima County Board
of Supervisors in support of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. Tucson, AZ.

123

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

Pima County. 2001c. Priority Vulnerable Species: Analysis and review of species
proposed for coverage by the Multiple-species Conservation Plan. Draft report to
the Pima County Board of Supervisors for the Sonoran Desert Conservation
Plan. Tucson, AZ.
Pima County. 2001d. Reserve design process update. Draft report to the Pima County
Board of Supervisors in support of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan.
Tucson, AZ.
Pima County. 2010. Pima County range management standards and guidelines.
Developed and distributed by the Pima County Natural Resources, Parks, and
Recreation Department, Tucson, AZ.
Powell, B. F. 2010. Climate change and natural resources in Pima County: Anticipated
impacts and management challenges. Unpublished report of the Pima County
Office of Sustainability and Conservation, Tucson, AZ. Accessed on March 10,
2012 at: http://www.pima.gov/cmo/sdcp/reports/d52/Ecological_Impacts.pdf.
RECON Environmental Inc. 2000a. Priority vulnerable species: Habitat data analysis.
Report to the Pima County Board of Supervisors for the Sonoran Desert
Conservation Plan, Tucson, AZ.
RECON Environmental Inc. 2000b. Review of vulnerable species list: Pima County,
Arizona. Report to the Pima County Board of Supervisors for the Sonoran
Desert Conservation Plan, Tucson, Arizona.
RECON Environmental Inc. 2001. Reserve design process update. Report to the
Pima County Board of Supervisors for the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan,
Tucson, AZ.
Rogstad, A., ed. 2008. Southern Arizona buffelgrass strategic plan. Buffelgrass
Working Group, Tucson, AZ.
Seager, R., M. F. Ting, I. Held, Y. Kushnir, J. Lu, G. Vecchi, H. P. Huang, N. Harnik, A.
Leetmaa, N. C. Lau, C. H. Li, J. Velez, and N. Naik. 2007. Model projections of
an imminent transition to a more arid climate in southwestern North America.
Science 316:1181-1184.
Steidl, R. J., A. R. Litt, B. F. Powell, and S. Mann. 2010. Selecting parameters for
ecological monitoring programs: A case study of Pima County, Arizona.
Supplement to a final report to the Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix,
AZ. Accessed on March 16, 2012 from:
http://www.pima.gov/cmo/sdcp/Monitoring/PDF/Supplement_B_Detailed_Design
_Process.pdf
Thomas, J. A., M. G. Telfer, D. B. Roy, C. D. Preston, J. J. D. Greenwood, J. Asher, R.
Fox, R. T. Clarke, and J. H. Lawton. 2004. Comparative losses of British
butterflies, birds, and plants and the global extinction crisis. Science 303:18791881.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Determination of Endangered status and Critical
Habitat for the desert pupfish. Albuquerque, NM.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Designation of Critical Habitat for the Huachuca
Water Umbel, a Plant. Albuquerque, NM.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Final addendum to the Handbook for Habitat
Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permit. Washington, DC.

124

Pima County’s Multi-species Conservation Plan: Public Draft

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Final Designation of Critical Habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl. Albuquerque,
NM.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Listing Gila Chub as Endangered With Critical
Habitat; Final Rule. Albuquerque, NM.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011a. Designation of Revised Critical Habitat for
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher: Proposed rule. Albuquerque, NM.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011b. Listing and designation of Critical Habitat for
the Chiricahua leopard frog; Proposed Rule. Albuquerque, NM.U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. 2012a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12month finding for the lemmon fleabane; Endangered status for the Acun˜a Cactus
and the Fickeisen plains cactus and designation of Critical Habitat; Proposed
Rule. Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2012–0061; 4500030113. Federal Registry,
Washington, DC.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants:
Designation of Critical Habitat for jaguar. Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2012–0042;
4500030114. Federal Registry, Washington, DC.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012c. Listing and designation of Critical Habitat for
the Chiricahua leopard frog; Final Rule. Albuquerque, NM.U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. 2012d. Review comments on the Administrative Draft of Pima County's
MSCP.

125