Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

The federal district court for the District of Arizona remanded certain issues back to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for reconsideration in connection with the FWS’s biological opinion pursuant to the Endangered Species Act for the Rosemont Mine in the Coronado National Forest. The court said the FWS unlawfully applied a heightened standard of review in determining that the mine was not likely to result in destruction or adverse modification of jaguar critical habitat, failed to assess the “tipping” point in its jeopardy analysis for the northern Mexican gartersnake, and included an unlawful Incidental Take Statement in the biological opinion. The court rejected other arguments raised by the plaintiff, including the argument that in evaluating jeopardy and adverse modification of critical habitat as to various listed aquatic species, the FWS failed to consider cumulative impacts of groundwater drawdown from private wells alongside effects of the mine and climate change. The court found that the FWS and U.S. Forest Service were aware of and considered these issues.

The Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Arizona alleging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS’s) biological opinion for a proposed open-pit copper mine on the Coronado National Forest violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Center also alleged that the U.S. Forest Service’s reliance on the biological opinion violated the ESA. The complaint also alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act. The Center contended that the mine would significantly impact a number of endangered species, including the Gila chub as well as one of three known wild jaguars in the United States. The complaint’s allegations included that the combined impacts of the mine and climate change would cause reduced flows in “key reaches” of a creek that had the only known stable and secure population of Gila chub in existence and also included more general allegations that the biological opinion failed to adequately describe and analyze the environmental baseline and cumulative effects, including the impacts of climate change.