Print
Comment
Rate
Coronado postpones Draft Rosemont Environmental Impact Statement
Dick Kamp Wick Communications Environmental Liaison 10-15-09
Pima County refutes Rosemont data; proposes alternatives
The Coronado National Forest will not release a draft Augusta Resource Rosemont Mine Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) by November, as planned, said Coronado Supervisor Jeanine Derby on Wednesday, "and has not developed an alternative schedule." The EIS is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Derby's decision comes shortly before an October 24 visit by US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources and Environment Deputy Secretary Jay Jensen, who oversees Forest Service policy for the USDA. Jensen will be here at the request of Representative Gabrielle Giffords and Raul Grijalva, (D-Az), for a tour of the proposed minesite and a public meeting coordinated by Giffords' office.
Giffords and Grijalva want USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack to have the Coronado consider a "no action" alternative for the proposed Rosemont mine in the EIS that could lead to a decision to deny the mine on the grounds of "no mitigation" possible to the Forest.
The US Forest Service has never issued a decision denying a hardrock mine, although litigation in response to agency approval has halted mining. Coronado's position is that under Federal law, particularly the 1872 Mining Act, they must only come up with means to mitigate or reduce impacts from a mine. This stance conflicts with other policies requiring environmental protection within the Forest Service.
Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry also wrote Vilsack in September calling the Coronado-Augusta memorandum of understanding to evaluate a mining proposal an "abuse of power" and requested that the USDA Secretary order the Coronado to examine the validity of mining claims that would have tailings deposited on them, and to suspend the EIS process until the validity claim was done and an MOU rewritten.
Derby's postponement of the draft EIS follows a growing series of studies and EIS alternatives submitted by Pima County, a formal "cooperating agency", along with state agencies, to the NEPA process.
Two letters were sent September 30 by County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry to Derby. One of them included a study commissioned by the county written by National Academy of Sciences member-geochemist Ann Maest. Huckelberry emphasized that Maest was co-author of a 2006 analysis for Earthworks, an environmental nonprofit, that concluded that 76% of mines studied, approved under NEPA for US public lands, had violated the Clean Water Act.
The Pima County Maest analysis examined Augusta tailings "leaching" (water polluting) potential, and ore analyses submitted to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality as part of their state Aquifer Protection Permit. Such analyses are submitted to demonstrate the potential of a mine to contaminate ground and surface water based on the actual ore mined and tailings produced.
Maest said Thursday, "Augusta's reports lacked information clearly stating which rock formations the copper ore would come from...it is impossible to know if the tests conducted by the mine are of ore that would actually be mined. Too few samples were used in the testing and not all contaminants of concern, such as radioactive compounds, were measured. Even so, Augusta's results suggest that elevated concentrations of sulfate, fluoride, and antimony may be leached from mined materials in a relatively short time."
Huckelberry asked Derby to, "refrain from relying on unproven statements (by Rosemont) and to gain more scientific information," to characterize the ore, tailings, and geochemistry of the mine.
The September 30 letters expanded and reiterated County proposals to the Coronado.
In August, Pima County had suggested that Rosemont consider an underground mine alternative that included tunneling through the Santa Rita Mountain ridge and sending waste by rail to the Twin Buttes mine in the Green Valley area, an idea that would generate considerable discussion in that area.
The mine dismissed the proposal "without reason" said Huckelberry. The county also suggested land trades as partial mitigation, backfilling or partially backfilling the pit and using liners below the tailings, all dismissed by Rosemont according to Huckelberry.
Huckelberry said that incomplete Augusta submissions to the EIS process included: incomplete hydrological analysis, protection of offsite springs and seeps, underestimation of amount of runoff, lack of protection for groundwater and surface water, the need to analyze creating a new canyon for runoff to avoid runoff through tailings into Barrel and Davidson Canyons, long term closure design to fit proposed use of land in the future, monitoring and adequate reclamation bonds.
Some comments were related to Pima County's authority to regulate flood plains under state law and originated with that department. Huckelberry re-submitted requests originally given to the Coronado in 2008 for independent hydrologic studies of the Sahuarita-Green Valley basins that have received no agency response to date. Julia Fonseca, who has represented the Flood Control District, said that the county "has no idea what water data is available."
Pima County has proposed that Augusta provide precise locations of where different operations will take place to the county public GIS website so that interested parties can conduct their own alternative studies.
In a separate October 14 letter to County Supervisors, Huckelberry attacked a recent Rosemont Mine public mailing to regional residents that described the mine as "sustainable", producing twice the copper out of half the land on half the water consumption, and that said purchases of excess CAP recharges of water for the Santa Cruz basin had already offset up to 10 years of mine water use.
The administrator described the mailing's portrayal of "natural" surface reclamation of the mine on the east side of the Santa Ritas, also the subject of a recent Arizona Daily Star article, as the "filling of several watersheds to create a terraced waste pile, an artificial ridge transverse to natural topography, and a tailings pile set in the forefront of the Santa Rita Mountains."
The Rosemont proposed mine has failed to meet other criteria beyond reclamation, said Huckelberry in his latest letter, that the county laid out in 2006 including pre-funded and enforceable reclamation while operating, setting aside 8800 acres for preservation per County conservation guidelines with an environmental endowment to manage those lands, and no impact to water in Cienega Basin and Creek. Since that time the County has steadfastly opposed the mine.
Rosemont Vice President for Sustainable Development Jamie Sturgess originally suggested that he could respond to the county letters to the Coronado but later said, "Rosemont chooses not to comment on internal deliberative or draft documents that have not been released to Rosemont by the Coronado Forest."
Forest Supervisor Derby said, "We haven't responded yet to the September 30 letters. We consider the meetings of cooperating agencies to be the appropriate venue."
At the October 15 meeting of those agencies, the Coronado agreed to provide Pima County with a list of studies underway.
Forest Service Albuquerque-based Regional Hydrogeologist Roger Congdon was asked how long it would take to characterize the hydrology (behavior of water) in the basins around the mine and in surrounding aquifers for the Rosemont EIS. This is one of the studies that the County seeks to evaluate.
Congdon said, "Who knows? It's NEPA."
Full Disclosure: The reporter has conducted technical investigations out of the country with Dr. Ann Maest, the Pima County geochemist-consultant.
Pima County refutes Rosemont data; proposes alternatives
The Coronado National Forest will not release a draft Augusta Resource Rosemont Mine Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) by November, as planned, said Coronado Supervisor Jeanine Derby on Wednesday, "and has not developed an alternative schedule." The EIS is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Derby's decision comes shortly before an October 24 visit by US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources and Environment Deputy Secretary Jay Jensen, who oversees Forest Service policy for the USDA. Jensen will be here at the request of Representative Gabrielle Giffords and Raul Grijalva, (D-Az), for a tour of the proposed minesite and a public meeting coordinated by Giffords' office.
Giffords and Grijalva want USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack to have the Coronado consider a "no action" alternative for the proposed Rosemont mine in the EIS that could lead to a decision to deny the mine on the grounds of "no mitigation" possible to the Forest.
The US Forest Service has never issued a decision denying a hardrock mine, although litigation in response to agency approval has halted mining. Coronado's position is that under Federal law, particularly the 1872 Mining Act, they must only come up with means to mitigate or reduce impacts from a mine. This stance conflicts with other policies requiring environmental protection within the Forest Service.
Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry also wrote Vilsack in September calling the Coronado-Augusta memorandum of understanding to evaluate a mining proposal an "abuse of power" and requested that the USDA Secretary order the Coronado to examine the validity of mining claims that would have tailings deposited on them, and to suspend the EIS process until the validity claim was done and an MOU rewritten.
Derby's postponement of the draft EIS follows a growing series of studies and EIS alternatives submitted by Pima County, a formal "cooperating agency", along with state agencies, to the NEPA process.
Two letters were sent September 30 by County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry to Derby. One of them included a study commissioned by the county written by National Academy of Sciences member-geochemist Ann Maest. Huckelberry emphasized that Maest was co-author of a 2006 analysis for Earthworks, an environmental nonprofit, that concluded that 76% of mines studied, approved under NEPA for US public lands, had violated the Clean Water Act.
The Pima County Maest analysis examined Augusta tailings "leaching" (water polluting) potential, and ore analyses submitted to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality as part of their state Aquifer Protection Permit. Such analyses are submitted to demonstrate the potential of a mine to contaminate ground and surface water based on the actual ore mined and tailings produced.
Maest said Thursday, "Augusta's reports lacked information clearly stating which rock formations the copper ore would come from...it is impossible to know if the tests conducted by the mine are of ore that would actually be mined. Too few samples were used in the testing and not all contaminants of concern, such as radioactive compounds, were measured. Even so, Augusta's results suggest that elevated concentrations of sulfate, fluoride, and antimony may be leached from mined materials in a relatively short time."
Huckelberry asked Derby to, "refrain from relying on unproven statements (by Rosemont) and to gain more scientific information," to characterize the ore, tailings, and geochemistry of the mine.
The September 30 letters expanded and reiterated County proposals to the Coronado.
In August, Pima County had suggested that Rosemont consider an underground mine alternative that included tunneling through the Santa Rita Mountain ridge and sending waste by rail to the Twin Buttes mine in the Green Valley area, an idea that would generate considerable discussion in that area.
The mine dismissed the proposal "without reason" said Huckelberry. The county also suggested land trades as partial mitigation, backfilling or partially backfilling the pit and using liners below the tailings, all dismissed by Rosemont according to Huckelberry.
Huckelberry said that incomplete Augusta submissions to the EIS process included: incomplete hydrological analysis, protection of offsite springs and seeps, underestimation of amount of runoff, lack of protection for groundwater and surface water, the need to analyze creating a new canyon for runoff to avoid runoff through tailings into Barrel and Davidson Canyons, long term closure design to fit proposed use of land in the future, monitoring and adequate reclamation bonds.
Some comments were related to Pima County's authority to regulate flood plains under state law and originated with that department. Huckelberry re-submitted requests originally given to the Coronado in 2008 for independent hydrologic studies of the Sahuarita-Green Valley basins that have received no agency response to date. Julia Fonseca, who has represented the Flood Control District, said that the county "has no idea what water data is available."
Pima County has proposed that Augusta provide precise locations of where different operations will take place to the county public GIS website so that interested parties can conduct their own alternative studies.
In a separate October 14 letter to County Supervisors, Huckelberry attacked a recent Rosemont Mine public mailing to regional residents that described the mine as "sustainable", producing twice the copper out of half the land on half the water consumption, and that said purchases of excess CAP recharges of water for the Santa Cruz basin had already offset up to 10 years of mine water use.
The administrator described the mailing's portrayal of "natural" surface reclamation of the mine on the east side of the Santa Ritas, also the subject of a recent Arizona Daily Star article, as the "filling of several watersheds to create a terraced waste pile, an artificial ridge transverse to natural topography, and a tailings pile set in the forefront of the Santa Rita Mountains."
The Rosemont proposed mine has failed to meet other criteria beyond reclamation, said Huckelberry in his latest letter, that the county laid out in 2006 including pre-funded and enforceable reclamation while operating, setting aside 8800 acres for preservation per County conservation guidelines with an environmental endowment to manage those lands, and no impact to water in Cienega Basin and Creek. Since that time the County has steadfastly opposed the mine.
Rosemont Vice President for Sustainable Development Jamie Sturgess originally suggested that he could respond to the county letters to the Coronado but later said, "Rosemont chooses not to comment on internal deliberative or draft documents that have not been released to Rosemont by the Coronado Forest."
Forest Supervisor Derby said, "We haven't responded yet to the September 30 letters. We consider the meetings of cooperating agencies to be the appropriate venue."
At the October 15 meeting of those agencies, the Coronado agreed to provide Pima County with a list of studies underway.
Forest Service Albuquerque-based Regional Hydrogeologist Roger Congdon was asked how long it would take to characterize the hydrology (behavior of water) in the basins around the mine and in surrounding aquifers for the Rosemont EIS. This is one of the studies that the County seeks to evaluate.
Congdon said, "Who knows? It's NEPA."
Full Disclosure: The reporter has conducted technical investigations out of the country with Dr. Ann Maest, the Pima County geochemist-consultant.
 |
 |
|
| College seeking women to explore male-dominated careers | Arizona Department of Public Safety faces possible 15 percent budget cut |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of willcoxrangenews.com.
