Guest Comment: SWCA conflict of interest

This comment is in regard to SWCA, the environmental consultant chosen by the U.S.Forest Service to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement for the open-pit copper mine that Augusta Resource has proposed for the Rosemont Valley in the scenic Santa Rita mountains.

The following is from the Web site of SWCA. It can be read in its entirety at http://swca.com/projectsample/31.

“SWCA, under contract to Phelps Dodge Safford, Inc., prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS) and a Mining Plan of Operations (MPO) for a proposed land exchange between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Phelps Dodge. The exchange, which had been in progress for more than 10 years, involved the transfer of nearly 4,000 acres of environmentally sensitive land from Phelps Dodge to the BLM. In return, the BLM transferred more than 16,000 acres of land to the mining company for the development of two open pit copper mines.

“The final EIS resulted in the identification and preservation of dozens of properties that contain rare and important natural and cultural resources. In appreciation of our service, Phelps Dodge granted SWCA an award. During the award ceremony, Phelps Dodge’s John Korolsky said, ‘We understood the complex nature of this exchange and the accompanying EIS. We decided from the outset that we were going to hire the very best to help us facilitate this process with the Bureau of Land Management. That’s why we hired SWCA, and they delivered.’”

It is very clear from the above that the choice of SWCA by the Forest Service to prepare the Rosemont Project EIS is stacking the deck in favor of Augusta Resource. It violates the spirit and the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

When I brought this conflict of interest with SWCA to the attention of Jeanine Derby, who is the Forest Service decision maker in this EIS, at the open house in Green Valley on March 19, my answer was “They do good science.”

The good science is a hoax. Augusta Resource pays for the EIS, and therefore pays for the services of SWCA to prepare the EIS. There is no limit to the amount SWCA can receive from Augusta Resource.

As with Phelps Dodge, above, Augusta Resource can feel that they hired SWCA, and as with Phelps Dodge, they can expect SWCA to deliver for them.

It makes no difference whether the lead agency is the BLM or the USFS. The attitude is the same: “That’s why we hired SWCA, and they delivered.”

SWCA will deliver the “good science” that the Forest Service needs to decide in favor of Augusta Resource.

Who will deliver the good science that will allow the Forest Service to decide in favor of the environment, and of the local community, which is overwhelmingly opposed to this proposed Rosemont Project for all the good reasons that Jeanine Derby and colleagues have been hearing since the first open house in Tucson on March 18, 2008?

There is no question that the good science is there for the Forest Service to decide no action in this EIS, and deny the use of 3,330 acres of the public’s land, entrusted to the care of the Forest Service, that Augusta Resource has requested for their proposed mine tailings.

It is also clear that the Forest Service will not get that kind of good science from SWCA, and the Forest Service knows it.

If the Forest Service wants to obey the spirit and intent of the NEPA, they will acknowledge their choice of SWCA to be a conflict of interest. They will declare this EIS to be flawed. They will start the EIS process again, beginning with the choice of an environmental consultant to prepare the EIS.

They will choose an environmental consultant that does not give the Forest Service the hoax of mitigation and reclamation measures, but the truth of the irreparable damage to the ecology of the Rosemont Valley and the beautiful scenic Santa Ritas, and to the local community, that would be done by this proposed Rosemont Project for all time.

Richard Calabro is a member of Save the Scenic Santa Ritas. For more information please visit http://www.scenicsantaritas.org.

The views expressed are the author’s and not necessarily this newspaper’s

Comment on this story online at www.gvnews.com