Rosemont Copper Mine Reclaimation Study Not Finishedby Robert Harris on Aug. 26, 2011, under Rosemont copper, Rosemont Mine
Among the tens of thousands of documents submitted To the National Forest Service are a group of documents known as the “Reclamation Plan”. The reclamation plan for the Rosemont copper project in Pima County Arizona was prepared by tetra Tech, Incorporated under the direct supervision of David R Krizek, Arizona professional engineer.the report was submitted September 2008. . During September 2009 heavy equipment was used to reshape three parcels of land and phase 3 of the reclamation testing began.
The Arizona State mine inspector, Joe Hart, approved the reclamation plan in July of 2009. One interesting fact concerning the approval of state mine inspector Joe Hart is that he only has authority over the private property. He cannot control or approve a reclamation plan for federal or state public property. This means that his approval of the reclamation plan covers the area where the open pit will be and at the present time the reclamation of the open pit will be to simply leave it as an open hole eventually being approximately 2600 feet deep and a drain hole evaporation point for the local aquifer.
On May 20, 2010 the Rosemont copper EIS cooperating agency coordination meeting was held to discuss the reclamation vegetation studies. One of the attendees at the meeting, newly hired and representing Rosemont copper was Holly Lawson, a research assistant for Dr. Jeffrey S. Fehmi, the assistant professor commissioned by Rosemont copper to research alternative revegetation procedures. The length of the project has been described as seven years in some paperwork and 10 years in others As of today August 24, 2011 she is still listed on Dr. Jeffrey S Fehmi’s website as a student researching the native species and techniques to best reclaim mine lands in the American southwest.
Following is a photograph presented by Rosemont copper and Holly Lawson to the national forest service as an example of vegetation growth.
Following is a photograph taken in June 2010 by a private individual showing the same relative position, the difference is quite dramatic.
Following is a photograph taken in May of 2011 showing the minimum vegetation growth on the test plot.
The report, written in July of 2007, is quite specific on the cost estimates for revegetation. In part two of the reclamation plan are the cost estimates for the revegetation.
Dr. Jeffrey Fehi’s research project final results concerning revegetation of the mine property are not due to be completed for possibley another five years. The point that I’m trying to hammer in is that the reclamation plan cannot truly be completed until the requirements for the revegetation are known.One of the conclusions reached during the research concerns the agave plant it is widely acknowledged that agave seedlings in the wild are extremely rare; Nobel’s (1977) research on A. deserti concluded that only one in 1.2 million seeds survive to maturity.
Latest photograph taken Aug 16, 2011 after the monsoon season started
The two primary questions related to the reclamation project are:
How can an uncompleted research project which has a forecast finished date of 10 years from the beginning possibly influence decisions concerning the validity of a reclamation proposal?
How can the Arizona State mine inspector approve a reclamation plan which basically covers nothing except the pit which will be left as an empty hole?
Welcome to the other side of the coin.