• Toronto-based Hudbay Minerals Inc., the owner of the Rosemont project, has failed to submit a mitigation plan to compensate for the destruction of wetlands, springs and seeps and important, functioning aquatic resources that meets the Clean Water Act’s requirements under Section 404 of the law. As a result, the Corps’ Los Angeles District Engineer last July recommended that the agency deny this required Clean Water Act permit consistent with repeated warnings by state and federal agencies that the project fails to comply with the law.

• According to published reports in September 2012 (click here), the Coronado National Forest Supervisor requested that his staff review the veracity of information provided to it by Rosemont Copper Company. Specifically, as noted in the article, Rosemont provided information to the Coronado National Forest in early July indicating that dramatic increases in copper reserves would not result in additional water use, truck traffic or air pollution. However, in a subsequent September 12 letter to the Forest Supervisor, Rosemont backpedaled on some of those earlier assertions, thus leading to further questions about the company’s credibility and requiring that more staff resources be employed to investigate these discrepancies.

• In August 2012, Augusta Resource released plans to significantly modify its mine proposal in an updated “Feasibility Study.” The Forest Service cited Augusta’s new plan as a reason to postpone the release of a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and require additional analysis. (Source: click here)

• August 3, 2010 email from the Forest Service’s Debby Kriegel to colleagues said that, “[u]nfortunately, the DEIS schedule and Rosemont’s continued dawdling (we’ve been asking them since January to fund someone to develop recommendations for tree planting) [emphasis in the original] mean that this mitigation measure won’t show up in the DEIS.”

• Notes from a July 27, 2010 Rosemont Team Meeting – The Forest Service noted during a Rosemont Team Meeting that Rosemont was late in providing certain required products was going to delay the project. Specifically, in the meeting notes regarding “Decisions Made” the Forest Service said that “[v]isual analysis- late products from RCC [Rosemont Copper Company] will extend project timeline”

• Notes from a February 2010 Forest Service Rosemont Project Team Meeting – The Forest Service included a specific topic on the meeting outline noting “Timeline delays” and listed the “Reports needed from Rosemont”.

• Notes from an August 11, 2009 Forest Service Rosemont Project Team Meeting – One of the topic discussed included, “Schedule slippage – possible reason include financial negotiation with RCC.”

• Notes from an April 28, 2009 Forest Service Rosemont Project Team Meeting – Under “Topics Discussed” “Alternative and where to go next: Still waiting on Rosemont, SWCA [emphasis in the original] can continue work…” [Note: SWCA is the Forest Service’s NEPA consultant for the Rosemont Project.]

• Notes from a March 24, 2009 Forest Service Rosemont Project Team Meeting – it was noted that with respect to alternatives, that only brainstorming could occur “because team is still waiting on vital reports.” Also, it was decided that the “Forest needs to document repeated requests for reports.”

Source:  Forest Service documents (click here.)

Thus, the examples cited above make it clear that Rosemont itself bears considerable responsibility for the length of time the permitting process has taken.

May 8, 2017