Giffords, Grijalva move to stymie Rosemont Mine

The Forest Service says it cannot stop development of the proposed Rosemont Copper mine in the Santa Rita Mountains, but two local members of Congress have asked the Secretary of Agriculture to overrule the agency’s interpretation of the law.

Reps. Gabrielle Giffords and Raul Grijalva, both Democrats from Arizona, sent a letter Monday to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack saying, “we ask that you direct the Forest Service to remain open to the possibility that their analysis will result in a ‘no action’ recommendation,” as stipulated under federal environmental law. A “no action” finding would block development of the mine.

That action came after the Coronado National Forest on Friday posted on its Web site a document saying that it could not legally prevent Rosemont from using forest land for copper mining operations.

On June 2, the Pima County Board approved a Memorandum of Understanding to become a participating agency with the Forest Service in its deliberations on the copper mine. That memorandum included similar language, but noted that the county disagrees with the Forest Service assertion.

Sahuarita town staff have been sent a draft MOU about the town becoming a participating agency and are meeting with Forest Service officials in an effort to work out differences, but the town council has not seen the document, town and Forest Service officials said.

The Congress members’ letter asked for a meeting with Vilsack and said “the proposed Rosemont mine would have far-reaching negative impacts on the forest and surrounding areas and it is hard to imagine how these could be mitigated effectively.”

The letter said the Federal Land Policy and Management Act provides that “in managing the public lands the Secretary shall, by regulation or otherwise, take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands.”

Augusta Resource, a Canadian company, has proposed a copper mine largely on private land, with processing operations and waste storage on Forest Service and other public land in the northern Santa Rita Mountains. The project has generated widespread criticism and nearly unanimous opposition from local officials.

The Coronado National Forest posted on its Web site a June 2009 Rights of Mining Claimants statement that says, in part, “The Forest Service cannot categorically prohibit mining activity or deny reasonable mineral operations under the mining laws. Selection of a no-action alternative is outside the discretion of the Responsible Official,” in this case the forest supervisor.

“In practice, the Forest Service works with the mining applicant to develop an acceptable legally compliant plan of operations as an alternative to be considered during the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) process, thereby precluding selection of the no-action alternative,” said the statement, which cites the General Mining Act of 1872, Multiple Use Mining Act of 1955 and other federal laws.

The state Game and Fish department has said the mine would destroy the northern part of the mountain range as wildlife habitat and others have questioned the mine’s impact on the already-sinking water table in the Santa Cruz Valley. Water is being drawn from wells in Sahuarita Heights, and while Augusta said it would voluntarily replace water withdrawn with Central Arizona Project water, critics note the mine may outlast the availability of CAP water by decades.

The Pima County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the 28-page MOU because the county “must be at the table,” District 4 representative Ray Carroll said.

“We took on this role to benefit the citizens. We’re unanimous as a board in our opposition and we’ve contributed a good amount of staff time to deal with this. We hope the Forest Service will reconsider their position on No Action,” Carroll said.

Gayle Hartmann of Save the Scenic Santa Ritas said in a press release that the agency stand “makes it sound as though the Forest Service now thinks its role is to provide a helping hand to Augusta, rather than be a federal agency working on behalf of the public.”

Morris Farr of Save the Scenic Santa Ritas said, “The policy to ignore the ‘NAA’ is a leftover from the previous administration and we are reasonably optimistic that we can get it overturned.”

Opponents include the owners of Farmers Investment Co., Dick and Nan Walden, who have hired prominent environmental lawyers and expect a court fight after the Forest Service makes a decision.

The Forest Service plans to make a final ruling by July 2010, and spokesman John Able said the process is intended to “ensure such plans minimize adverse environmental impact.”

A county board memo drawn up by Huckelberry said “we still have a significant disagreement with the Forest Service regarding their ability to select a no-action (stopping the mine) alternative...and how the project purpose and need are so narrowly defined as to exclude meaningful alternatives.”

The memo says the county and Forest Service will agree to disagree on the “no action” alternative and that the county would continue to pursue the issue with Congressional and Obama Administration officials. It said the county will get better information and opportunities for environmental mitigation by becoming a cooperating agency.

The county’s June 3 letter to Grijalva said, in part, “the County has conducted numerous NEPA studies on County projects partially or wholly funded with federal funds and where the No Action Alternative is always a viable choice. To eliminate the No Action Alternative frankly invalidates the entire environmental review process, particularly when the activities on public lands will unquestionably cause undue degradation of federal lands and their aggregate component of value to the citizens and taxpayers of the United States.”

The letter also says “if the No Action Alternative cannot be considered, then we might as well admit that the game is rigged, with Rosemont destined to win in the end, no matter what concerns are expressed by others regarding documented, irreversible environmental harm.”

pfranchine@sahuaritasun.com | 547-9738