News
Letter: Rosemont imperils wildlife
By Philip Franchine, Sahuarita Sun
Game and Fish criticizes mine
The U.S. Forest Service has received more than 3,200 comments on the proposed Rosemont copper mine since the July 14 deadline and is still counting.
The total number is estimated to be about 4,000, agency spokesman John Able said.
One of the comments, a six-page letter from the Arizona Game and Fish Department, said, “Despite any and all mitigation measures, this project will result in significant adverse impacts to wildlife, wildlife habitat and wildlife recreation. We believe the project will render the northern portion of the Santa Rita Mountains virtually worthless as wildlife habitat and as a functioning ecosystem, and thus also worthless for wildlife recreation.
“Furthermore, the project has great potential to impact wildlife and habitat off the forest. We therefore do not support the development of the Rosemont Mine,” the Game and Fish letter said.
Among many issues raised by Game and Fish was concern that water drawn for mine use would depress the water table around the Sahuarita Heights well fields and that planned recharge might occur miles away and might hinge on Central Arizona Project water that may not be available.
The Forest Service this week was planning to send a letter responding to the request by the Town of Sahuarita for status as a cooperating agency.
The Forest Service is offering the state Game and Fish Department status as a cooperating agency, Able said. The complete list eventually will be posted on the Coronado National Forest Web site at http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coronado/rosemont/.
Mine opponents say the large number of comments and the need for the Forest Service to respond to so many issues could delay its decision on the mine.
Other opponents say that approach may win a Forest Service ruling against the mine or may delay a decision so long as to discourage the investors, especially if the historically volatile price of copper drops during the process. A wild card that could drop into their hands is that after the November elections a new Congress may be willing to amend the relevant federal laws.
Farmer’s Investment Company has hired two high-powered lawyers who will rely on the water issue and federal environmental law in opposing the mine. They expect to drag out the process before the Forest Service and possibly in court for a decade or more.
FICO hired Dinah Bear, until recently general counsel for the Council on Environmental Quality, and Van Wolf, who is of counsel to Snell and Wilmer law firm in Phoenix, to contest the mine issue.
Some feel the legal deck is stacked in favor of the mine, as one purpose of the Forest Service is to provide logging, mining and ranching opportunities and because the relevant federal law is the Mining Act of 1872, which was intended to encourage resource extraction without any environmental protection.
“Despite the known shortcomings of the 1872 Federal Mining Law, a number of federal statutes have been passed subsequent to it that may apply in whole or in part to the Rosemont Mine. These include the National Historic Preservation Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water and Clean Air acts, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, including the Community Right-to-Know provisions in CERCLA,” FICO's Nan Walden said.
“NEPA has many complex provisions, and NEPA case law over the years has added to the requirements and disclosures that applicants must produce. Due to the costs and time required for compliance, this statute has caused many projects over the years to be redesigned, re-scaled, or has caused applicants to abandon projects as unfeasible. An example of this is the old Westside Highway in New York City, which spent years in the courts and was eventually abandoned, largely due to the public and political opposition as a result of the NEPA disclosure process,” Walden said.
Bear may be one of the top national experts in NEPA, having worked for 25 years for CEQ, whose Web site says the agency “is responsible for advising the President and Vice President on national and international environmental policy matters and ensuring that federal agencies operate efficiently in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.”
Others who are opposing the mine include veteran environmentalists and numerous elected officials, including Pima County Board members.
“I have never seen any proposed action, certainly a mine, with such overwhelming opposition: both congressmen; the Board of Supervisors. It’s a huge factor for all kinds of reasons. The Mining Act of 1872 does not override more recent laws. I have seen mines not go forward before, whether it is because there is a lot of opposition or simply because the environmental analysis takes a lot of time and eventually the (mine proponent) gives up,” Bear said.
While some say the process favors the mine, Bear said, “If the mine was ready to open today I’d agree, it looks as though the price of copper (is that high), but it’s not ready to open today. It’s at least a decade, probably more, down the road. I think it will take at least that long to get through the NEPA process, and if the Forest Service approves the mine, I suspect there will be litigation.”
Jeanine Derby, Coronado National Forest Supervisor, said “the Forest Service initiated an EIS (environmental impact statement) which will analyze the social, economic and ecological effects on National Forest lands and the surrounding area. The analysis must be objective, using the best available science to address the relevant questions and issues being raised during scoping."
Derby said the Forest Service expects to complete an EIS by March 2009, a date that opponents say is unrealistic in view of the number of issues raised by the proposal.
Jamie Sturgess of Augusta Resource, the company behind the mine, said Augusta drilled its first test hole in 2005 and expects to complete the NEPA process within one to two years.
Sturgess said of Bear and Wolf, “We look to them to helping us to have our program to fully withstand scrutiny.”
Wolf said the mine plan of operations will have to include a reclamation plan, but noted that changing technology may allow the mine to expand beyond the currently projected boundaries, and so the reclamation proposal would have to expand also.
“The Forest Service said the draft EIS will be done by March 2009, but I think that’s not realistic. They have to be extraordinarily careful and thorough in what they produce. They want to put out a draft EIS that is as nearly bulletproof as they can figure out. I’d be surprised if they could do a draft EIS in under three years,” Wolf said.
The mine plans to use more than 100,000 acre-feet of water over a 19-year period and critics say that will further deplete an aquifer in its well field east of Sahuarita.
Sturgess said Augusta will recharge the aquifer with Colorado River water, that Augusta already has obtained about 40 percent of that amount in physical water, and is acquiring rights to Colorado River water that awaits construction of a pipeline to a recharge site near the well field.
pfranchine@sahuaritasun.com | 547-9738
The U.S. Forest Service has received more than 3,200 comments on the proposed Rosemont copper mine since the July 14 deadline and is still counting.
The total number is estimated to be about 4,000, agency spokesman John Able said.
One of the comments, a six-page letter from the Arizona Game and Fish Department, said, “Despite any and all mitigation measures, this project will result in significant adverse impacts to wildlife, wildlife habitat and wildlife recreation. We believe the project will render the northern portion of the Santa Rita Mountains virtually worthless as wildlife habitat and as a functioning ecosystem, and thus also worthless for wildlife recreation.
“Furthermore, the project has great potential to impact wildlife and habitat off the forest. We therefore do not support the development of the Rosemont Mine,” the Game and Fish letter said.
Among many issues raised by Game and Fish was concern that water drawn for mine use would depress the water table around the Sahuarita Heights well fields and that planned recharge might occur miles away and might hinge on Central Arizona Project water that may not be available.
The Forest Service this week was planning to send a letter responding to the request by the Town of Sahuarita for status as a cooperating agency.
The Forest Service is offering the state Game and Fish Department status as a cooperating agency, Able said. The complete list eventually will be posted on the Coronado National Forest Web site at http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coronado/rosemont/.
Mine opponents say the large number of comments and the need for the Forest Service to respond to so many issues could delay its decision on the mine.
Other opponents say that approach may win a Forest Service ruling against the mine or may delay a decision so long as to discourage the investors, especially if the historically volatile price of copper drops during the process. A wild card that could drop into their hands is that after the November elections a new Congress may be willing to amend the relevant federal laws.
Farmer’s Investment Company has hired two high-powered lawyers who will rely on the water issue and federal environmental law in opposing the mine. They expect to drag out the process before the Forest Service and possibly in court for a decade or more.
FICO hired Dinah Bear, until recently general counsel for the Council on Environmental Quality, and Van Wolf, who is of counsel to Snell and Wilmer law firm in Phoenix, to contest the mine issue.
Some feel the legal deck is stacked in favor of the mine, as one purpose of the Forest Service is to provide logging, mining and ranching opportunities and because the relevant federal law is the Mining Act of 1872, which was intended to encourage resource extraction without any environmental protection.
“Despite the known shortcomings of the 1872 Federal Mining Law, a number of federal statutes have been passed subsequent to it that may apply in whole or in part to the Rosemont Mine. These include the National Historic Preservation Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water and Clean Air acts, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, including the Community Right-to-Know provisions in CERCLA,” FICO's Nan Walden said.
“NEPA has many complex provisions, and NEPA case law over the years has added to the requirements and disclosures that applicants must produce. Due to the costs and time required for compliance, this statute has caused many projects over the years to be redesigned, re-scaled, or has caused applicants to abandon projects as unfeasible. An example of this is the old Westside Highway in New York City, which spent years in the courts and was eventually abandoned, largely due to the public and political opposition as a result of the NEPA disclosure process,” Walden said.
Bear may be one of the top national experts in NEPA, having worked for 25 years for CEQ, whose Web site says the agency “is responsible for advising the President and Vice President on national and international environmental policy matters and ensuring that federal agencies operate efficiently in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.”
Others who are opposing the mine include veteran environmentalists and numerous elected officials, including Pima County Board members.
“I have never seen any proposed action, certainly a mine, with such overwhelming opposition: both congressmen; the Board of Supervisors. It’s a huge factor for all kinds of reasons. The Mining Act of 1872 does not override more recent laws. I have seen mines not go forward before, whether it is because there is a lot of opposition or simply because the environmental analysis takes a lot of time and eventually the (mine proponent) gives up,” Bear said.
While some say the process favors the mine, Bear said, “If the mine was ready to open today I’d agree, it looks as though the price of copper (is that high), but it’s not ready to open today. It’s at least a decade, probably more, down the road. I think it will take at least that long to get through the NEPA process, and if the Forest Service approves the mine, I suspect there will be litigation.”
Jeanine Derby, Coronado National Forest Supervisor, said “the Forest Service initiated an EIS (environmental impact statement) which will analyze the social, economic and ecological effects on National Forest lands and the surrounding area. The analysis must be objective, using the best available science to address the relevant questions and issues being raised during scoping."
Derby said the Forest Service expects to complete an EIS by March 2009, a date that opponents say is unrealistic in view of the number of issues raised by the proposal.
Jamie Sturgess of Augusta Resource, the company behind the mine, said Augusta drilled its first test hole in 2005 and expects to complete the NEPA process within one to two years.
Sturgess said of Bear and Wolf, “We look to them to helping us to have our program to fully withstand scrutiny.”
Wolf said the mine plan of operations will have to include a reclamation plan, but noted that changing technology may allow the mine to expand beyond the currently projected boundaries, and so the reclamation proposal would have to expand also.
“The Forest Service said the draft EIS will be done by March 2009, but I think that’s not realistic. They have to be extraordinarily careful and thorough in what they produce. They want to put out a draft EIS that is as nearly bulletproof as they can figure out. I’d be surprised if they could do a draft EIS in under three years,” Wolf said.
The mine plans to use more than 100,000 acre-feet of water over a 19-year period and critics say that will further deplete an aquifer in its well field east of Sahuarita.
Sturgess said Augusta will recharge the aquifer with Colorado River water, that Augusta already has obtained about 40 percent of that amount in physical water, and is acquiring rights to Colorado River water that awaits construction of a pipeline to a recharge site near the well field.
pfranchine@sahuaritasun.com | 547-9738
Copyright © 2009 - Green Valley News and Sun