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

News articles August 2011

August 7, 2011 By Administrator Leave a Comment


Rosemont OK isn’t a given

Corps of Engineers says it can deny mine permit

By Tony Davis, Arizona Daily Star
Sunday, August 7, 2011

While the U.S. Forest Service says it can’t legally say “no” to the proposed Rosemont Mine, another federal agency says it can.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which must act to grant or deny a permit for the mine under the federal Clean Water Act, says a permit denial could stop the project proposed on private and public land in the Santa Ritas southeast of Tucson.

Rosemont Copper hasn’t yet filed a formal permit application with the corps. Agency officials have no position on how they’ll act on that application.

But the corps says it can say “no” if it determines that the project isn’t in the public interest and isn’t the least damaging, “practicable” alternative. That’s a legal term essentially meaning a project that can be feasibly done at a reasonable cost.

Under the Clean Water Act, Rosemont Copper must obtain a permit from the corps to build diversion structures to reroute water now running in washes around various proposed mine facilities, including its open pit. Such permits are typically required for placement or discharge of fill material into rivers, streams, washes and adjacent wetlands that fall under the corps’ legal jurisdiction.

Five law professors around the country, including three with experience on Clean Water Act issues, and an attorney for the property-rights-oriented Pacific Legal Foundation agreed that the Corps of Engineers can legally deny a permit for a mine on federal land.

Read more: http://azstarnet.com/business/local/article_bc66bf97-1e8f-566e-8364-d48d83409cff.html

Proposed copper mine near Tucson remains in limbo

By Tony Davis, Arizona Daily Star

Sunday, August 7, 2011

A proposed southern Arizona mine that would dig up 234 million pounds of copper annually remains in limbo awaiting permit applications and federal approval.

The U.S. Forest Service says it can’t legally say “no” to the proposed Rosemont Copper Co. mine on public and private land in the Santa Rita Mountains, some 30 miles southeast of Tucson.

However, Rosemont Copper has yet to file a formal permit application with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The agency must act to grant or deny a permit for the mine under the federal Clean Water Act, and a permit denial could stop the project.

Under the Clean Water Act, Rosemont Copper must obtain a permit from the corps to build diversion structures to reroute water now running in washes around various proposed mine facilities, including its open pit.

Such permits are typically required for placement or discharge of fill material into rivers, streams, washes and adjacent wetlands that fall under the corps’ legal jurisdiction.

Five law professors around the country, including three with experience on Clean Water Act issues, and an attorney for the property-rights-oriented Pacific Legal Foundation agreed that the Corps of Engineers can legally deny a permit for a mine on federal land.

Read more: http://azstarnet.com/news/state-and-regional/article_9375810e-5818-5434-b688-851d837de0fb.html


County faults Rosemont on roads

Saturday, August 6, 2011
By Philip Franchine, Green Valley News

Pima County fired another shot at the proposed Rosemont Mine on Monday, telling the Forest Service that the mine would require $27 million in public spending on roads, but has only committed $211,743 to public agencies for road work.

The county says the mine will cause $14.6 million in damage to 44 miles of primary access roads and would require $13 million to add lanes to Highway 83, the route for mining trucks hauling ore.

That criticism was among several that Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry submitted Monday in the county’s second round of comments on the Coronado National Forest’s working Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).

The proposed open pit mine would be about a mile wide and would be on private and public land just east of the ridge line in the northern Santa Rita Mountains.

The Forest Service has said in the DEIS that it cannot block the mine as long as it complies with environmental laws. Pima County argues that if the Forest Service cannot stop the mine, it should require the mine to pay for mitigation measures, but that such requirements are lacking in the DEIS.

Huckelberry said the ADEIS said heavy mining trucks will increase maintenance costs on Highway 83 but the document did not provide cost figures.

“Incredibly, it is assumed impacts are limited to Highway 83 when other sections of the ADEIS state that trucks will be transporting heavy material and equipment between the mine and the Port of Tucson, which is located at Kolb and Valencia, and would include city and county roads, as well as Interstate 10,” he wrote.

One measure the county advocates is backfilling the mine’s entire planned open pit, not just part of it. The new comments say that would have “tremendous positive impacts for reducing what would otherwise be irretrievable losses of habitat, scenic views and water resources,” and would also have economic benefits.

The working DEIS gives a cost estimate of $90 million for backfilling part of the mine pit, and Huckelberry asked whether that figure was “purposely inflated” to make it sound impractical.

Rosemont officials could not be reached Friday but have said that filling the pit is not a reasonable option.

Forest Service officials have declined comment while the EIS process is under way.

Aug. 1 was the deadline for public agencies to submit comments. The Forest Service will incorporate those comments in a formal DEIS, which will be published for public comments this fall. The current Forest Service Schedule of Proposed Actions lists Jan. 20, 2012, as the date a decision is expected on the mine proposal.


Rosemont Mine face-off in Tucson

Monday, August 1, 2011
By David Rookhuyzen, Green Valley News

Representatives of the proposed Rosemont mine and its chief opposition sparred over matters of economy and ecology during a meeting Wednesday of the Southern Arizona Green Chamber of Commerce.

Jeff Cornoyer, senior geologist for Rosemont Copper, and Morris Farr, vice president for Save Our Scenic Santa Ritas, gave presentations and answered questions about the effects of the controversial mine slated to be built in the Santa Rita Mountains about 30 miles southeast of Tucson.

Cornoyer continued the company’s promotion of the economic benefits of the mine, highlighting the 400 direct and 1,700 indirect jobs in the area that Rosemont says the mine will create. Cornoyer compared the potential annual revenue to other big events the state has hosted.

“That’s one Super Bowl and two Gem and Mineral Shows for every year the mine is in operation,” Cornoyer said.

He also touched on the environmentally conscious aspects of the mine, such as LEED-compliant buildings, using electric shovels instead of hydraulic, and filtering tailings to recycle water and not leave any lakes or ponds behind.

Cornoyer repeated the mine’s goal of having a zero-impact on the local aquifer and said it had already banked nine years of water to be put back into the ground.

Farr argued the local economy would grow better without the mine, as companies and individuals continue to move to the unmarred, scenic area.

If the mine does not move in, Farr said, his town of Sonoita alone could add more than 400 permanent, wage-earning residents, instead of the 400 direct mining jobs that would leave after the mine’s expected 20-year lifespan.

Farr  derided Rosemont’s claims of ecological sustainability, pointing out the mine has a projected lifetime of 20 years and a vast, open pit, several times deeper than the height of the Tucson skyline, will be left behind.

He also expressed skepticism of the mine’s reclamation plans for the tailings, saying the method has never been tested on this scale.

“I don’t know if we in Arizona want to be Rosemont’s experiment,” he said.

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