Save the Scenic Santa Ritas

Fighting to protect the Santa Rita and Patagonia Mountains from the devastating impacts of mining.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Contact
    • Board of Directors and Staff
    • Endorsements
    • Opposition and Resolutions
    • Volunteers and Friends
  • Background
    • Rosemont Mine
      • History
      • Impacts
        • Air Quality
        • Land Use
        • Wildlife and Habitat
        • Scenic Views
        • Heritage
        • Recreation
        • Economy
        • Water and Hydrology
    • Legislation
    • Copper
    • Patagonia Area Mines
  • News
  • Action
    • Donate
    • Volunteer
    • Join Mailing List
    • Endorse Us
    • SSSR Presentation
    • Show Your Support
    • Letter Writing
  • Events
    • Past Events
  • Resources
    • Visual Media
    • Links
    • Documents and Reports
    • 1872 Mining Law
    • Inspiration
  • Projects
    • Lens on the Land
      • Biodiversity
      • Culture
      • Economy: Industry, Tourism & Recreation
      • The Land
      • Night Sky and Astronomy
      • Water Resources
    • Rosemont Mine Truth

Mine opponents sue over Rosemont role

February 9, 2011 By Administrator Leave a Comment


Mine opponents sue over Rosemont role

Posted: Tuesday, February 8, 2011 3:48 pm

By Philip Franchine Green Valley News Green Valley News & Sun and The Sahuarita Sun

Opponents of the proposed Rosemont Copper mine have filed a federal lawsuit to stop the Forest Service from working on a key environmental study until opponents can join Rosemont in meetings with government agencies.

The lawsuit, filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Tucson, alleges the Forest Service violated federal law by regularly including Rosemont, a private entity, in meetings with cooperating government agencies. That  means those meetings are subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which requires public participation, the suit says.

The suit also asks that the Coronado National Forest be required to turn over minutes of all 23 meetings of the cooperating agencies plus other documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed in September.

The plaintiffs include Dick and Nan Walden of Farmers Investment Co., Gayle Hartmann of Save the Scenic Santa Ritas, and Randy Serraglio of the Center for Biological Diversity. The open pit mine would be on the eastern slope of the northern Santa Rita Mountains.

A Forest Service spokeswoman said she could not comment on the lawsuit. Coronado National Forest Supervisor Jim Upchurch said in a Jan. 14 letter to mine opponents that the agency did not violate federal law by allowing Rosemont in meetings and that the agency would respond to the FOIA request by Jan. 31.

However, on Feb. 2, Upchurch sent a letter to Serraglio saying the agency does not have a delivery date and is “in the process of reviewing responsive records for Privacy Act and other information that must be withheld in accordance with FOIA exemptions before we transmit them to you.”  Upchurch added that he was “rerouting” the request to the Forest Service Southwestern Region’s FOIA/Privacy Act Service Center in Albuquerque.

Serraglio said a handful of documents have been released.

The Forest Service web site says Rosemont participated in 18 of the 23 meetings of cooperating agencies in 2009 and 2010.

Serraglio said “FACA is very clear what role the proponent (Rosemont) plays. They can come in and give presentations on technical issues to help the cooperating agencies understand the proposal and in a couple of instances they did that, but they definitely are not supposed to be sitting there in the vast majority of meetings, participating in the conversations in which decisions are being made.

“I think it is entirely possible that Rosemont’s presence would have a chilling effect on the kinds of concerns that are brought up, mitigation suggested, further study that needs to be done. There are all kinds of ways that Rosemont’s participation would have a chilling effect, but without the minutes of the meetings or other info from the Forest Service, it’s anybody’s guess,” Serraglio said.

DEIS due out

The Forest Service web site says it expects to publish the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) on Rosemont this month, with a decision by June 2012, and implementation by October 2012.

However, on Tuesday agency spokeswoman Heidi Schewel said, “We have not yet identified a new timeline for the DEIS (draft environmental impact statement).  When we do it will be shared widely.”

Schewel said she hopes to release more information on the Rosemont consideration process in the next few days. Before the Forest Service can rule on the mine request, the DEIS must be published, followed by a 90-day comment period and publication of the final EIS.

The lawsuit asks that the court stop the agency from doing any work on the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) “until the agency immediately reconstitutes its FACA advisory committee to include Plaintiffs as full committee members with Augusta/Rosemont.”

Augusta Resource, headquartered in Vancouver, British Columbia, owns Rosemont Copper.

The suit asks that the agency turn over all communications between Rosemont and Coronado; a list of all documents that CNF has received from Rosemont and a “privileged list” of documents being withheld under FOIA exemptions, such as including proprietary information.

Raquel Cantu, acting Southwestern Region Forest Service Liason, said on Tuesday, “I know they’ve been working on this FOIA request for a long time but I’ve seen nothing on my end yet.”

In January, Upchurch wrote that FACA applies when “a specific group of individuals is formally designated to collectively advise and/or make recommendations to a Federal agency. This is not occurring in the Rosemont Copper Project environmental review process.

“The cooperating agencies in the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) process of the Rosemont Copper Project do not function as a formal, organized group or committee. They are not directed by a group charter or similar document,” Upchurch wrote.

Instead, Rosemont’s participation is to provide technical information,

Upchurch wrote, and its role is governed by a Memorandum of Understanding signed by the mine and the Forest Service.

Serraglio said “this process has been flawed from the very beginning,” arguing the CNF tried to fast-track the consideration of the matter.

pfranchine@gvnews.com | 547-9738

Filed Under: Rosemont

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Recent Posts

  • Litigation Schedule February 17, 2021
  • Links to recent news and letters – 2021 February 15, 2021
  • Links to recent news and letters – 2020 December 31, 2020
  • Long Mountain – a film by Leslie Epperson July 8, 2020
  • A major win for endangered species in the Santa Ritas February 13, 2020

NEWSLETTER SIGNUP

Sign up to receive important updates straight to your inbox! We will guard your privacy and will not provide your email to anyone else.

RSS Latest from Rosemont Mine Truth

  • Pima County reaffirms resolution opposing Rosemont Mine April 19, 2019
  • Hudbay approves $122 million spending plan for “early works” at Rosemont March 29, 2019
  • Hudbay seeking Rosemont Mine joint venture partner after receiving key federal Clean Water Act permit March 15, 2019
  • Hudbay has failed to provide legal justification for Clean Water Act permit, Natural Resources Committee chairman says March 5, 2019

Selected Lens on the Land Photographs

PlayPause
Slider

Litigation Update

Speaking of which (the appeal originally filed in Nov. 2017 challenging the Forest Service’s approval of the mine), we now have a schedule for that case in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals – not definitive, but at least a general time frame:

 

After a lot of negotiating, the lawyers have come to an agreement on the final schedule of our cases before the 9th Circuit Appeals Court. Here is the updated schedule:

  • Feds opening brief due by 1 June 2020
  • Hudbay opening brief due by 15 June 2020
  • Then, our response by 3 September 2020
  • Feds optional reply brief by 2 November 2020
  • Hudbay optional reply brief by 9 November 2020

Click here for more updates

DONATE

Copyright © 2021 · Save the Scenic Santa Ritas