Tucson Citizen.com
The Other Side of the Coin - the proposed open pit copper mine in the Coronado national Forest near Tucson Arizona

Rosemont Copper Mine Reclaimation Study Not Finished

by 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.

picture used in the presentation to the national forest service

picture source is Rosemont presentation to national forest service

Following is a photograph taken in June 2010 by a private individual showing the same relative position, the difference is quite dramatic.

June 20, 2010 photograph by private individual

dead grass after nine months

Following is a photograph taken in May of 2011 showing the minimum vegetation growth on the test plot.

May 5, 2011 photo by private individual

lack of growth after almost 2 years

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

Latest photo after rain fall

The two primary questions related to the reclamation project are:

number one:

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?

number two:

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.

 



  • TomC

    So your point is research is bad? or is it that plants take a while to grow in a drought? It doesn’t appear you have even read the studies, the original reclamation plan was submitted in 2007 (not 2008) and has been updated in 2010.  The first study from the University of Arizona was published in 2007 so it obviously has been almost 5-years already for the research.

    As to pictures that show mulch and you classify it as a failure – again, read the studies. The author appears to be so blinded by dislike of the project that the articles are made up as they go along.

    Also, I question why names of a research student and professionals are inserted into the article without quotes, or reference. A witch hunt at best and threatening at the least – a very poor editorial choice to allow this.

  • Dona

    I believe what the author is trying to express is agitation at the irresponsible
    approval of a remediation plan that has yet to be proven successful.  Unproven research
    is really quite “useless as tits on a bull” as my late mother-in-law used to say.

  • Maclassy

    So 5 years into the Tetra Tech Inc research the reclamation project looks much like the “reforested, man-made mountains” in Green Valley minus the popsicle sticks sticking out of the barren earth. Remember, the folks in Green Valley complained that the dust from the mine tailings ate the paint from their patio furniture. Imagine what it does to their lungs. Granted, those are folks past their prime with limited longevity which works well with the reclamation plan currently in place in their neck of the woods. But there are those who dwell in the region closer to the projected Rosemont/Sumtitoma tailings who hope to live long, healthy lives with their children, perhaps, outliving them.  
    State Mine “Inspector” Joe Hart declared his job was to foster mining in this state rather than focus on mine safety for mine employees or the general public. We apparently get what we vote for balloteers, lest we forget.  

  • TomC

    Another non-reader, University study that just finished the first year of field testing.  Tailings here nothing like tailings there.  Besides the tailings were there long before those people were – if you are going to move in below active tailings facilities using conventional tailings then you have to expect dust.  But then I guess dust in the desert may be an anomaly. (sarcasim off)

    I am beginning to see what this blog is all about – a place for uninformed people to pat each other on the back rather than share actual information.  It’s also funny that you see promoting mining and mining safety as mutually exclusive.

  • http://www.savethesantacruzaquifer.info Nancy Freeman

    How many years of field testing will it take to find out how long it will replace thousands of century old oaks? How many century old oaks will be destroyed by tailings and waste rock? Please go check the site for the tailings and pit out and you will see what I mean. 
    Actually, the pit is not on private land. We were given the impression that the mining would be at Rosemont ranch, private land, and Augusta needed F.S. land for tailings and waste rock and operations and leach pads. As it turns out, the pit is not on Rosemont Ranch land but on patented F.S. land. The patents to take the minerals were filed in 1994ish at a cost of $2.50 per acre. For those who are wondering why Augusta and other Canadian companies are coming to U.S. to mine, these are the answers, including in Canada you have to pay a royalty for mining on public lands and the wages are higher there.

  • TomC

    Patented land is private land.  The reason they are mining at Rosemont is because there is copper there.  Canadian mines are cheaper and faster to permit and the wages are comparable.