As is obvious from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) issued by the US Forest Service, the impact of the proposed copper mine is the highest in the immediate vicinity of the mine site….mostly impacting nearby Coronado Forest lands….and declining the farther away from the mine site one gets.

How many Tucsonans drive on State Route 83? Probably way fewer than drive down Interstate 10 or Interstate 19.

So one main opposition groups calls itself “Save the Scenic Santa Ritas” and their campaign would leave one to believe that the mine will visually impact what most people in Tucson and Green Valley define as their view of the Santa Ritas.

Except that is not true. No one from Tucson or Green Valley will be able to see the proposed mine or its tailings piles.

The visual impact of the proposed mine is limited to people who drive on State Route 83 or live in that area.

But mine opponents have succeeded in getting hundreds of thousands of Tucsonans believing they will be impacted…. which is not true.

One cannot compare the Rosemont proposal to the mines west of Green Valley because those tailings piles were constructed prior to there being any effective regulation on the visual design of tailings piles.

The mining engineers who designed the Green Valley tailings piles created monuments to mining engineers….and in the course of that aliented a large number of people in the state. I dislike those tailings piles like virtually everyone else in the region.

That does not mean, however, that Rosemont will get away with tailings piles that replicate the Green Valley ones.

The major difference is the Forest Service has a lot of teeth in its land use permitting process.

There was no equivalent to the Forest Service addressing the Green Valley area mine design when those mines were started years ago.

A second issue…ground water in Green Valley.

The mine has a permit from the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) to withdraw 6,000 acre feet of ground water from the Green Valley area.

Farmers Investment Company (FICO) jumped into the fight against Rosemont because the Rosemont wells are just east of FICO’s wells.

According to FICO, the world is going to end if Rosemont gets the green light to mine and begins pumping ground water from the mine’s wells.

One needs to remember that FICO pumps in the neighborhood of 25,000 to 30,000 acre feet of groundwater per year…5 times what Rosemont proposes.

FICO is under no state water law obligation to replenish the aquifer what they pump from it.

Mines and farms are exempt under current state law from having toi pay back our aquifers what they pump. Only new municipal development is under any kind of sustainability replenishment requirement.

There is a serious problem with groundwater level declines in Green Valley and that is because of FICO’s pumping for the last 50 years and the pumping by the mines west of Green Valley.

The problem is not limited to Rosemont.

To its credit, Rosemont recognized the issue and offered to do two things that they are not required to do under existing state law…they agreed to mitigate the impacts of their proposed pumping on neighboring private wells and they offered to fund a CAP recharge project in Green Valley via the Community Water Company.

FICO countered with its own proposed CAP recharge project that excludes participation of Rosemont.

Pima County and the City of Tucson jumped in behind FICO’s proposal and are working to try and block Rosemont from succeeding with its CAP recharge project.

Say what?

Interesting how FICO, Pima County and the City of Tucson can object to Rosemont’s groundwater use and then turn right around and do everything they can to block Rosemont from solving the problem.

Only in Tucson can that kind of duplicitous behavior be gotten away with because the Arizona Daily Star refuses to call FICO, Pima and Tucson out in this egregious  double standard.

So everyone believes Rosemont is going to cause water problems in Green Valley when in fact the leader of the opposition pumps five times the groundwater and is under no mandate to replenish its pumping and is fighting the resolution of the problem.

Instead of attacking Rosemont, Tucson and Green Valley residents need to tell FICO, Pima County and Tucson to get on board with a regional CAP replenishment project that ALL ground water users in Green Valley must participate in…Rosemont, FICO, and the mines west of Green Valley.

Pima County spent thousand of dollars creating a model of the proposed mine with graphics comparing the mine as though it were inside Tucson. A spectacular piece of prograganda…but the point is the mine is on the east side of the Santa Rita…not in downtown Tucson.

Listeing to the opposition one would think the site of the proposed mine is the last place on earth with specific environmental amenities.

It obviously was not that important a place when the Pima County committee that decided what lands to buy with Pima bond money chose not to buy the site before Rosemont got it.

You ought to take a tour of the mine site and see for youself where it is and how it relates to the surrounding area.

But as is typical in environmental fights..whatever disturbance one wishes to pursue…the site immediately becomes the last place on earth with some endangered species habitat or other attribute that demands stopping the project.

The mine involves a total of about 6 square miles of land that would be disturbed over a 20 year period.

Putting that in context…at least that much land gets bladed around Tucson annually for new subdivision and commercial development, pipelines, roads and other infrastruture.

*  *  *

Looking at the DEIS there are clearly a lot of issues to be addressed in the immediate vicinity of the mine.

The DEIS identifies potential impacts which thus sets the stage for negotiations between Rosemont and the Forest Service on how those impacts might be mitigated.

Identifying environmental issues in an environmental impact statement does not automatically mean the mine project can be killed. What it means is the Forest Service and the mine will need to address the issues in whatever manner the parties agree.

Opponents of the mine who have drawn a hard line in the sand saying “no mine” may find themselves left out in the cold when the negotiations start on mitigation because they have staked their position on an extreme position and not offered any mitigation proposals.

For example, the DEIS noted that the mine’s tailings piles could be constructed in such a way as the reduce the visual impacts on forest lands and for State Route 83 area residents.

There is an opportunity here for design controls over their tailings piles that never existed on the mines west of Green Valley.  Instead of “no tailings piles” there is an opportunity for “yes…but…” which the Forest Service has identified. Do the people along SR 83 want to be involved in the design criteria?

A third impact of the proposed mine is traffic on SR 83. No question there will be a major change there. The alternative would be to connect the mine to Interstate 19 via Santa Riota Road which would be a major issue for Sahuarita and Green Valley. Obviously the mine chose the least disruptive alternative that impacted the least number of people.

Of course the residents along State Route 83 object…but the bigger question is…is that your problem in Tucson and Green Valley?

Mine opponents are trying to make that your problem when in fact it is not.

The avoids a more basic issue…if there is going to be an impact on SR 83…what are the state and feds going to do to mitigate that impact?

Obviously some major improvements will be needed to SR 83 to mitigate traffic impacts. But I do not hear the mine’s opponents seriously digging into what mitigation requirements there ought to be. Should the road be widened? Should some of the tighter curves be straightened out?

My guess is the Arizona Department of Transportation  (who owns that road) will try and get some mitigation measures such as adding lanes to the road on grades so mine trucks will not impede the flow of traffic and so forth.

Again we have a group of people dug in on the position of “no mine” and there is nothing coming from them in the context of “yes…but”. The Arizona Department of Transportation will be the lead on the …but” conditions…and maybe with no input from area residents if they refuse to participate in mitigation discussions.

Another local issue about the mine is downstream from the mine site. There are issues about water supply and water quality. If Rosemont’s conduct regarding the Sahuarita Heights area and their willingness to recharge CAP water is any indicator (and they are) then solutions to the water issues downstream from the mine site are attainable.

Unlike the impacted residents of Sahuarita Heights who went to the table with Rosemont to find a mitigation strategy, SR 83 residents are dug in with their “no mine” approach and are not engaged in look for ways to not only eliminate the negative impacts but to maybe even improve their water supply situation.

I’ve worked on water issues in that area and it is not like the Tucson Valley with a huge lake of underground water beneath it. It is more like a surface water system that is highly reactive to annual rainfall. Wells can go dry out there having nothing to do with there being a mine.

Point out the problem only get one half way down the road. Problems always have solutions.

SR 83 residents are betting their future on killing the mine and doing nothing to look at Plan B if (as it in fact likely) the Forest Service approves the mine’s land use permit.

The core issue driving opposition to the mine is the belief that “public” meaning federally-managed lands should not be used to mine copper.

Many view the Coronado National Forest as some kind of wilderness park that exists solely to protect endangered species of plants and animals. That belief is not the law of this country.

A major issue involves alleged impacts of the mine on endangered species. The Center for Biological Diversity has jumped into the fray demanding the Rosemont mine site be included in Chiricahua Leopard Frog proposed habitat. That and several other endangered species impacts are alleged by Center for Biological Diversity. See KUAT story
One thing consistent about Center for Biological Diversity is they are all over the country trying to block development projects using the endangered species act and litigation to try and achieve their goals.

In the normal context of conflicts between development and endangered species impacts, the end result is usually getting a mitigation plan out of the proposed development to fund species protection and recovery projects. One gives a little here to get a lot more there.

There is no doubt in my mind that Rosemont could end up being a real plus for saving the Chiricahua Leopard Frog and other endangered species in the area by tapping the mine project  to buy other identified more significant habitat sites and funding recovery projects.

Absent the shrill opposition from CBD, that is likely to happen. And it is a good bet that whatever the Forest Service proposes to mitigate endangered species issue, CBD will sue to block the mitigation plans.

One has to acknowledge that the opponents of the mine have done a spectacular job of misdirecting public concern from what are very localized impacts and convincing a lot of people who really are not directly impacted  by the project into thinking the mine is “their” issue.

A telling trend in the mine fight was that the opposition was very successful in getting a lot of community opposition to the mine organized early on…such as getting resolutions opposing the mine approved by local governments from as far away as Oro Valley.

But as local governments looked deeper into the issues surrounding the mine, one by one they have backed off opposing the mine because they now see what the real story is. Oro Valley re-voted recently to withdraw its opposition to the mine and went neutral.

The interesting thing to me is that Rosemont has shown an unusual willingness to work with people to mitigate the environmental impacts of the mine.

But rather than participate in that process to seek mitigation measures, Tucson, Pima County, Save the Scenic Santa Ritas, FICO and CBD keep pounding their opposition drums and attacking anyone that is willing to even try and talk to the Rosemont mine people.

There are lots of important issues to deal with regarding how that mine could be developed and minimize its negative impacts on the area’s groundwater and scenery.

From first hand experience I know for a fact that the Rosemont people are willing to deal with mitigation issues honestly and effectively.

I negotiated, on behalf of over 100 Sahuarita Heights residents, a mitigation program to eliminate the impact of the mine’s wells on private wells in that area.

No mine in the history of the state previously had stepped up and agreed to the measures Rosemont did.

Mine opponents whine about the impact of Rosemont’s wells on the groundwater levels in Green Valley. But they conveniently ignore the well protection program Rosemont agreed to.

And more shockingly, mine opponents are actually trying to block the best solution of all…having Rosemont recharge CAP water in Green Valley so there would be zero impact of the mine’s pumping of groundwater.

Water issues in Green Valley more complicated than it seems

Mine opposition fights Rosemont’s CAP recharge proposal

How can they claim the mine is going to negatively impact the groundwater and then turn around and try and block a really good solution to the problem?

In Tucson the mine’s opponents believe they can get away with this two-faced approach because they have the Arizona Daily Star and the Pima County government acting like campaign headquarter for mine opposition.

Pima County spends big, working overtime to kill Rosemont Copper Mine

Mine opponents have lied to Tucsonans about a lot of issues relating to the Rosemont project.

They have created the mistaken impression the people in Green Valley and Tucson would be able to see the mine.

Arizona Daily Star does hatchet job on proposed Rosemont Mine

What that tells me is there is really little substance behind all the whining about the mine and mine opponents cannot stand anyone calling them out on their lies.

Interestingly, Pima County Supervisor Ray Carroll, a vehement opponent of Rosemont, has threatened newspapers for running ads for Rosemont and attacked individuals who have spoken out in favor of the mine.

From the Editor: Here’s how it works, Ray

Tucson is dominated by a kind of environmental fascism where only one side…the environmentalists’ side…is allowed to be heard.

The Tucson Citizen is an opportunity to level the playing field and try and make sure the people in the region get both sides of the story.

Arizona Daily Star does hatchet job on proposed Rosemont Mine

Mine opposition fights Rosemont’s CAP recharge proposal

Rosemont opponents don’t want the truth to be known

Arizona Daily Star does hatchet job on proposed Rosemont Mine

By Hugh Holub, Inside Tucson Business Inside Tucson Business

The following story was bannered across the front page of the Arizona Daily Star on July 1:

Forest Service foresees huge scenic impact over Rosemont’s projected life

Irretrievable loss’ at mine site

By Tony Davis

“The contrast between today’s view of the Rosemont Mine site and a U.S. Forest Service simulated photo of its future couldn’t be more striking.

“Today, milepost 44 of Arizona 83 southeast of Tucson offers views of juniper-covered, rolling foothills in the foreground and tree-and-grass-covered ridges to the rear in the Santa Rita Mountains.”

The “before” and “after” pictures of what the Rosemont Mine site would look like from State Route 83 (the road from Vail to Sonoita) were bannered at the top of the front page.

Now consider this buried in the story:

“To get a handle on visual effects, the Forest Service analyzed how the mine would look from eight vantage points, based on five possible mine designs. The viewing areas ring the mine site from Sahuarita Road 11 miles northwest of the mine to Sonoita on the southeast, and include vantage points at mileposts 44 and 46 and along Arizona 83. “

Oh….there’s seven other “before” and “after” photo simulations out there.

Many people in Tucson, Green Valley and Sahuarita believe they will be able to see the Rosemont Mine from those locations.

One of the “viewpoint” locations analyzed in the preliminary draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) is called “Viewpoint 9″.

Here is what it says about “Viewpoint 9″:

“This viewpoint is along East Sahuarita Road, with the Santa Rita Mountains visible to motorists eastbound while traveling from Sahuarita and Interstate 19 toward Corona de Tucson and State Route 83 north of the Santa Rita Ecosystem Management Area boundary. It is a popular thoroughfare for rural residents who live near the forest boundary. It is also representative of the Tucson residential view of the Santa Rita Mountains

The outlying area of Tucson is approximately 8 miles to the north of the road, but views of the Santa Rita Mountains would be similar because the aspect would be comparable to Sahuarita Road views.

More….

Now here is what the DEIS says about the visual impacts of the mine from Viewpoint 9…which is what most people in Tucson and Green Valley would see:

Viewpoint  9

This viewpoint is located at a point along Sahuarita Road, approximately 11 miles northwest of the proposed mine site. The results of the geographic information system calculated viewshed analysis show that from this viewpoint, only the Scholefield-McCleary Alternative impacts would be visible. Thus, no simulations were produced and no analyses were conducted for the proposed action, Phased Tailings, Barrel, or Barrel Trail Alternatives from viewpoint 9.

The “proposed action” of the Forest Service would have no visual impacts to viewers along I-19 and I-10…the people of Tucson and Green Valley would see nothing changed.

Anyone who has actually looked at the mapping of the proposed mine can clearly see that the mine and its tailing pile will NOT be visible from Green Valley, Sahuarita or Tucson.

One must ask why the Star chose to show the State Route 83 view and not the view  the people living in Tucson and Green Valley would see.

Now…I’d be posting the other  “before” and “after” photos from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement here so everyone could see what the visual impact of the mine would be…especially from Viewpoint 9.

But I cannot do that because the Draft EIS was given to local governments for their review before being released to the public.

On top of every page of the Draft EIS is  the notice: Draft – Deliberative – Not for Public Distribution.

But someone from government agencies that got copies leaked it to the Star….so the Star could pound away on the mine project without anyone else having a chance to consider it for themselves.

The Star, to its credit, did put up pdf files of the DEIS. http://azstarnet.com/news/local/collection_fe036d6a-8d5c-11e0-a1f9-001cc4c03286.html

However the Star left one important piece out.

According to the DEIS “The fully displayed panoramic simulations for all of the action alternatives, as seen from all of the analysis viewpoints, are located on a CD in appendix D in the sleeve of the DEIS.”

The “before” and “after” photo simulations are on a CD  whose contents were not posted by the Star.

The Star obviously used on the photo simulations for its July 1 story….but access to the other photo simulations is not available.

Thus you and I cannot see Viewpoint 9.

To put just one of 8 “before” and “after” photo simulations on its front page and ignore the other 7…especially the one (Viewpoint 9)  most relevant to the people of the region….now isn’t that interesting?

Even more interesting is the truth that the proposed alternative would have no visual impact on Green Valley or Tucson…thus the DEIS doesn’t even show that one because the “before” and “after” pictures would be exactly the same. What you see now is what you will always see.

The Viewpoint 9 simulation is only for an alternative that the Forest Service does not recommend.

Seeing how the Star handled the visual impact issue one can seriously argue that instead of trying to tell the whole story about the mine, the paper chose to function more like a blog for the opponents of the mine and try and rile up opposition to the mine in Tucson and Green Valley.

The truth is the mine’s Forest Service proposed alternative would not have any visual impact on Tucson and Green Valley.

And, finally, the DEIS has an interesting discussion about mitigation of view impacts of the mine:

The Barrel Trail or a similarly designed alternative probably has the best opportunities for landforming on the waste rock and tailings piles (shaping the outer surface to mimic natural forms to visually blend into the surrounding landscape). As proposed, none of the action alternatives meet scenic quality objectives in the forest plan or mitigate visual impacts well.

Visual impacts from the proposed action and action alternatives could be reduced through inclusion of measures that would result in the open pit and tailings and waste rock facilities that help the mine features better blend into the surrounding landscape. These measures could include the following: (1) topographic land forming and slope recontouring on the waste rock and tailings piles to recreate or mimic the surrounding natural topography and landscape forms; (2) planting of trees and shrubs on the waste rock and tailings piles; and (3) treatment (e.g., painting, staining, or desert varnish) of the visible areas of the mine pit and terraced slopes, along with the pit diversion channel, to darken the exposed and unweathered rock, to mimic the surrounding landscape colors. However, these methods are not currently incorporated into the proposed action or action alternatives.

The Forest Service is investigating the feasibility of geomorphic design (sometimes called landforming) and construction of the Rosemont mine waste rock and tailings piles. Landforms of geomorphic design can create more stable, natural functioning, and natural looking topography than conventionally designed landforms, which could mitigate some impacts to water quality and quantity, visual quality, recreation settings, and wildlife habitat. The Forest Service plans to explore the status of geomorphic landform design in the mining industry. If these investigations show that geomorphic landform deign is feasible for the Rosemont project we will then apply geomorphic principles to at least one alternative. This investigation and potential design work will take place between the DEIS and FEIS.

In combination, exploring and implementing these measures could substantially reduce scenic quality impacts in the long term by reducing the form, color, line, and texture contrasts created by surface disturbances and exposure of unweathered subsurface rock and soil. The mitigation effects would reduce landscape contrasts by blending the mine disturbances with the surrounding landscape, encouraging denser revegetation and surface coverage along more natural patterns of plant development and succession, and reducing the number of engineered drainage structures (Golder Associates Inc. 2010). Under this reclamation and mitigation regime, it is possible that postmine closure impacts would be more rapidly reduced and that portions of the mine would more quickly meet low to moderate scenic integrity objectives (see table 3.1).

Some mitigation measures mentioned in chapter 2 do not yet have sufficient information or commitment for consideration in this analysis. Although planting vegetation (and in some cases, watering) is mentioned, no details about species, sizes, locations, or availability has been provided. Mitigation mentioned in chapter 2 also includes testing ways to darken or weather the light-colored exposed rock faces, but there is no commitment to follow through with this mitigation measure. The use of weathering agent, which has been used on several projects on the Coronado National Forest, may be effective in darkening rock. Compensatory land mitigation is also mentioned, but no details about land locations or potential scenic benefits have been provided.

Mitigation mentioned in chapter 2 includes the intent to reduce or eliminate future development of private lands currently owned by Rosemont Copper that would eventually be located on top of waste rock and tailings piles (i.e., Rosemont Ranch). Rosemont Copper and the Coronado will  work together to reduce or eliminate future development of these lands that could compromise reclamation of waste rock and tailing areas over the long term. This analysis assumes that these efforts will limit future development and that future impacts to visual resources will not occur.

Further mitigation of the Rosemont Copper Mine would be beneficial to protect visual resources, including measures described here. These measures would minimize short-term, long-term, and permanent impacts from the project and would ultimately reduce cumulative effects on scenic quality in southeastern Arizona.

One can read this and get an idea where the Forest Service is going in terms of conditions it may try to impose on the Rosemont Mine project to mitigate the visual impacts. Which are basically to contour the tailings pile to look more natural and stain the portion of the mine pit wall so it is the same color as the surrounding rock. Not bad ideas.

Here are links to the portions of the DEIS that discuss the visual impact issues:

Chapter 2 Alternatives including Proposed Action

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/azstarnet.com/content/tncms/assets/editorial/8/f3/8f8/8f38f890-8d5d-11e0-97e5-001cc4c03286-revisions/4de7fdc29bf01.pdf.pdf

Chapter3    Visual Resources

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/azstarnet.com/content/tncms/assets/editorial/3/ee/fc2/3eefc232-8d63-11e0-8da8-001cc4c03286-revisions/4de8074e9a6dd.pdf.pdf

The point was the Star did not show the before and after view of the mine from where most of the people in Tucson and Green Valley would be able to see….no change…because no one in Green Valley or Tucson would be able to see the mine or its tailings piles.

See also:

Mine opposition fights Rosemont’s CAP recharge proposal

Rosemont opponents don’t want the truth to be known

Rosemont report fuels arguments for, against

By Tony Davis

The U.S. Forest Service’s recent draft environmental-impact statement on the proposed Rosemont Mine has something for both sides when it comes to economic and social impacts.

The statement agrees virtually dollar for dollar with an earlier report, financed by Rosemont Copper, that foresees large local, state and national economic benefits from the project.

Like the 2009 Arizona State University economic analysis of the mine, the Forest Service’s preliminary statement predicts billions to tens of billions of dollars in economic benefits locally, regionally and nationally.

It also says the mine’s presence in the Santa Rita Mountains southeast of Tucson wouldn’t discourage tourism.

But the new statement also echoes a key point from critics: that the expected increase in employment and tax revenue will be small, compared to the region’s overall economy. That was the theme of a second Rosemont economic analysis, produced last year by a University of Montana economist, Thomas Power, who was hired by mine opponents living near the site.

More…

COMMENT: The identification of negative impacts…whether exaggerated or not…serves as the baseline for the Forest Service to negotiate use permit conditions.

Contrary to the claims of mine opponents, the Forest Service is not going to say “no mine” because federal law doesn’t have that option for a mine. They have based their whole effort on killing the mine instead of trying to mitigate the impacts of the mine on the environment.

Many may not like the 1872 Mining Law…but until Congress changes it…that’s the law.

Pima County has sided with the opposition and its strategies, backing them with taxpayer funds… instead of trying to be an “honest broker” between economic concerns and environmental concerns to find a “win-win” path.

Thus the question…who will sit at the table with the Forest Service arguing for the environmental mitigation aspects of the use permit?

Certainly mine opponents will be there trying to get conditions that would kill the mine. Pima has already staked out the position they want billions in restoration efforts including filling the pit back up.

But who will sit there trying to balance economic interests and environmental interests on behalf of the people in the region?

Opponents of the mine have attacked anyone and everyone who tries to find a balance because they cannot tolerate anything but achieving their goal of no mine at all.

There is a similarity to the national debates on the deficit, border security..every issue is polarized by extremes and there is no middle ground. It is all about the fight and not about solving problems in a collaborative fashion that recognizes all side have some “right” to where they come from and the solution must recognize all sides do have good points.

Instead the Rosemont fight is characterized by an evil foreign company wanting to destroy pristine wilderness. Read the comments from some of the anti-Rosemont people in previous posts here.

For example the following comment from Michael Smith to Request that Pima County work with Rosemont is probably dead on arrival

As a representative of the county government, and involved in the issue of approval/disapproval of the Rosemont operation, whom would you expect to pay the bills?

I dislike using any Obama quotes, but in this case, the used-to-death one about putting lipstick on a pig doesn’t alter the fact that a pig is still a pig, seems appropriate; And no amount of lipstick can make an open pit mining operation anything other than what it is – forever destruction of the environment in which it is located and the depletion of our most precious resource – water.

We know as well, by experience, that if the price of copper should fall, the mine would be shut down without regard to all the promises made by its operators, and that all those pie-in-the sky projections would be as meaningless as the words used to make them.

This is not an environmentally-conscious operation – it is a for-profit operation and, if the enviroment has to be sacrificed to achieve profit, then it will be.

It is true there would be beneficiaries – those who actually work in the mines, their families and, to some extent, the communities in which they live – but the greatest benefit would be to the foreign-owned business enterprise which plans to use archaic US laws to plunder and destroy American soil. They have no emotional stake in the mine, only financial. It is not in their back yard.

mseekersmith7@gmail.com
Michael Smith

Note: Smith is way off base on the water issue…Rosemont is trying to recharge CAP water in Green Valley and is being opposed by Pima County and mine opponents such as FICO. Now there is a story you likely will not read in the local print daily.

Meanwhile… I am fascinated by how quickly the draft EIS..which was not for public circulation and which was sent exclusively to various government agencies…ended up being posted by the Star to fuel the fight. I think it was within 2 hours the DEIS had been released by one of the original recipients so that th negative findings in it could be used to fan the flames of opposition.

As Davis’s article notes…there was also positive findings. But you won’t see a word about those in press releases from the Center for Biological Diversity or Save the Scenic Santa Ritas or Pima County in their continuing efforts to kill the mine.

My bet is a Pima County employee released the DEIS in violation of the embargo…probably with a wink and a nod from Huckelberry’s office. In the real world, if a Pima County employee released the DEIS they should be fired.

Davis got his story and was used as a tool by mine opponents so they could hammer away on all the negative envionrmental findings in the DEIS.

Whomever released the DEIS has a cynical view of the integrity of the DEIS process and demonstrated a value system that raises serious questions about the ethics of the government officials involved. I am sure the Forest Service was not amused by the DEIS public release….unless one of their staff is responsible.

Davis will obviously protect his source as a journalist must.

But he is inadvertantly sitting on a whole other story…the role some governement around here is playing to fight the mine.

Maybe a “whistleblower” in the County ought to release all the correspondance between Huckelberry and Ray Carroll and mine opponents so we can see just how cynical Pima’s role is in the fight and who really is the driving force behind it. My email is holaw@mindspring.com. I will protect the confidentiality of any “whistleblower”.

Draft document says agency’s options are limited

Forest Service proposes approval of Rosemont Mine

By Tony Davis

Approval of Rosemont Mine is proposed by the U.S. Forest Service in its draft environmental impact statement.

The document states: “The actions proposed in this DEIS are for the development of the Rosemont ore deposit owned by Rosemont Copper in a manner that does the following: complies with federal, state and local laws and regulations, reduces adverse environmental impacts on national forest lands, is without undue or unnecessary degradation of lands administered by the BLM, takes into consideration impacts to waters of the U.S.

“Rosement Copper is entitled to conduct operations that are reasonably incidental to exploration and development of mineral deposits on its mining claims, pursuant to U.S. mining laws.”

“The proposed action is to approve the preliminary MPO (mine plan of operations) for construction, operation with concurrent reclamation and closure of an open-pit copper, molybdeum and silver mine.”

More….

Davis at the Star also got a copy of the summary of the DEIS which is supposedly not for public release…click here to the Star for the pdf.

From August Resource Corporation Press Release Jun 1, 2011:

U.S. Forest Service delivers Rosemont Preliminary Draft EIS
to State and Local Agencies

Denver, CO, June 1, 2011 – Augusta Resource Corporation (TSX/NYSE Amex: AZC) (“Augusta” or the “Company”) announces that printed and electronic copies of the preliminary draft Environment Impact Statement (“EIS”) have been delivered by the Coronado National Forest to the State of Arizona and local Cooperating Agencies for final review. The Cooperating Agencies have been mandated with 30 days to provide their final comments on the draft EIS as part of the federal government National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) process. This is in line with the U.S. Forest Service’s (“USFS”) previously announced schedule guidance of August 2011 for the draft EIS to be available for public comment under NEPA regulations.

The Record of Decision (“ROD”) for the Rosemont Copper project appears on track for January 2012 and in-line with previous USFS guidance allowing for a 90 day public comment period after the publication of the draft EIS in August 2011.

“With the preliminary draft EIS now delivered to the cooperating agencies we are one major step closer to the ROD,” said Gil Clausen, Augusta’s president and CEO. “We are pleased with the progress the USFS has been able to attain in the past several months and expect that they will be able to meet their objective for releasing the draft EIS to the public this August.”

About Augusta

Augusta is a base metals company focused on advancing the Rosemont Copper deposit near Tucson, Arizona. Rosemont hosts a large copper/molybdenum reserve that may account for about 10% of US copper output once in production in 2013 (for details refer to www.augustaresource.com). The exceptional experience and strength of Augusta’s management team, combined with the developed infrastructure and robust economics of the Rosemont project, will propel Augusta to become a solid mid-tier copper producer. The Company is traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange and the NYSE Amex under the symbol AZC.

COMMENT: Those familiar with the mining laws of this country have long known that the US Forest Service cannot legally say “no mine” in the Coronado National Forest in spite of what local opponents to the proposed Rosemont copper mine claim.

What the environmental impact statement process is about is to identify environmental impact issues. Period.

Right now there is a “draft environmental impact statement” (DEIS) which has been forwarded to local and state governmental interests such as Pima County. The government interests have 30 days to file comments, then there will be a second draft of the EIS released to the public for their comment. The public will have 90 days to comment at that point.

After the second draft is commented on, then the Forest Service would issue a Final environmental impact statement.

In the current phase on can expect lots of comments from opponents to the mine and from Pima County that the draft environmental statement does not go far enough in cataloging the negative impacts of the mine project claimed by mine opponents.

Once there is an inventory of environmental impacts then the federal agency (in this case the US Forest Service) then goes about crafting a use permit taking into account the environmental impact issues.

Just because there are negative environmental impacts noted in an environmental impact statement does not mean a proposed project is automatically killed.

In this case the US Forest Service cannot just say “no mine”.

What will happen is the Forest Service will propose a use permit that says “yes…you can do your mine…but subject to the following list of conditions.”

For instance…if the environmental impact statement identifies impact of groundwater pumping to de-water the pit as a negative impact on downstream forest lands and neighbors….the Forest Service would likely have permit conditions requiring Rosemont to mitigate those impacts.

And then Rosemont either agrees to those conditions or doesn’t.

What has been starkly missing in the local media coverage and debate about the proposed Rosemont copper mine project is any recognition that Rosemont actually is willing to step up to the plate and work on mitigation issues.

One significant example…which I was directly involved in as pro bono attorney for over 100 families with private wells west of Green Valley…was to mitigate the impacts of Rosemont’s well field on neighboring private wells. An agreement which is unprecedented in Arizona water history was entered into whereby Rosemont must mitigate its pumping impacts on neighboring private wells.

Rosemont has also proposed to participate in a CAP groundwater recharge project in Green Valley…something it legally does not have to do…but is the right thing to do for regional water management.

FICO, one of the largest users of groundwater in Green Valley and Pima County have fought Rosemont’s CAP recharge effort.

Betting the water and environmental future of Pima County and Green Valley on a “take no prisoners” opposition to any mine whatsoever is terminally stupid on the part of Pima County.

Pima has taken the side of opposition extremists to the mine and failed to do anything meaningful to try and work on mitigation issues for the broad public interest that would allow this multi-billion dollar economic development opportunity to go forward and benefit Pima County’s environment…like by getting CAP recharge capacity farther south into Green Valley which would benefit all of the area.

Ultimately the Forest Service will negotiate a use permit for the mine…and Pima County and other interests do not have a chair at the table to try and create a “win-win” solution because they’ve drawn a hard line in the sand against the mine.

And we all know what happens to hard lines in the sand when the monsoon comes.
_____________________________________________________________________
More on the Rosemont mine issue….
Center for Biological Diversity demands Rosemont Mine site be included in protected habitat for frog

Rosemont copper mine would benefit economy and community but is buried in bureaucracy

Time to stop ‘delay as a form of denial’ on Rosemont Copper mine

Pima County spends big, working overtime to kill Rosemont Copper Mine

Don’t play games with CAP recharge in Green Valley

Water issues in Green Valley more complicated than it seems

100 years of copper mining industry abuse alienates public

The next step in using the Endangered Species Act as a weapon to throttle virtually all human activity in the country is the designation of critical or protected  habitat.

If the species or subspecies or “distinct” population is endangered oe threatened…obviously the plants or animals need a “place” to live without being harmed. That  is the “critical or protected habitat”.

But first one must understand the definition of “harm” that threatens or endangers the plant or animal.

After a convoluted process US Fish and Wildlife will issue a “biological opinion” defining what it believes is threatening or endangered the plant or animal.

This is mostly a non-scientific exercise in speculation….this “may” that “might’ harm the plant or animal.

When you look at petitions for listing in the first place, you will see the alleged “harm” type activities that must be stopped…cattle grazing, global warming, road construction, obstructing natural migratory paths,  wind turbine blades turning, whatever.  If you really want to read some good science fantasy, read this stuff.

Here is just one example from the Sonoran Desert Tortoise decision from US Fish and Wildlife to make the turtle a candidate for listing as an endangered species:

Development as a Barrier

Urban development, canals, and transportation infrastructure, such
as roads and railroads, disrupt ecological processes, increase
mortality in animals, promote the degradation, loss, and isolation of
wildlife habitat, and cause fragmentation of populations (Sonoran desert tortoise populations are island-like in their distribution, meaning they are generally concentrated on the bajadas and hillsides of mountains, and less-
distributed within the valleys between these areas. As a result, they
may be particularly vulnerable to large-scale disturbances that affect
the suitability of intervening habitat.Factors that affect inter-population dynamics in Sonoran desert tortoises include distance between populations, physical size of habitat areas, sizes of source populations, and the ease of which intervening areas can be crossed by dispersing individuals.

The effect of potential barriers to inter-population movements of
Sonoran desert tortoises (discussed above in the Species Information
section) is not equal across their range. The ability for the Sonoran
desert tortoise to move among populations is also important for
allowing shifts in their range in response to climate change, and to
promote recolonization after fire or other regional disturbances. Dispersal of Sonoran desert tortoises between populations through sparse desertscrub is less likely in very hot, dry valleys in the Lower Colorado subdivision of Sonoran desertscrub and populations in mountain ranges, such as the Eagletails, Maricopas, and Sand Tanks, have likely been existing in isolation for a long time.

Genetic analysis of blood samples collected from Sonoran desert
tortoises in Saguaro National Park in Pima County, Arizona, suggest
that intermediate gene flow still occurs, or occurred recently, among
isolated populations at the rate of at least 1 migrant per generation
(12-15 years). However, thousands of acres of tortoise habitat have been recently lost to large residential developments in the foothills of the Santa Catalina, Tortolita, Rincon, and Tucson Mountains in the greater Tucson metropolitan area.

The importance of allowing movement of individual tortoises between
populations is observable by evaluating historical gene flow. Edwards
et al. (2004, p. 485) used seven microsatellite DNA markers to examine
the genetic relationships of tortoises in eight populations in southern
and central Arizona, in the vicinity of Tucson and Phoenix. They also
calculated migration rates among these populations to estimate
historical rates of gene flow, and, therefore, the importance of
individuals moving between populations (Edwards et al. 2004, p. 485).
Edwards et al. (2004, p. 496) found no evidence of recent loss of
genetic diversity that would indicate genetic bottlenecking that could
occur from lack of mixing among Sonoran desert tortoise populations in
southern Arizona. However, the authors acknowledged that a small sample
size and small number of genetic markers (alleles) used in their
analyses would likely not detect this genetic effect. Despite reduced
mixing among populations, Sonoran desert tortoises may be capable of
maintaining small effective population sizes (still viable populations,
despite small size), even with a low degree of genetic diversity
(Edwards et al. 2004, p. 496). However, Edwards et al. (2004, p. 496)
also stated, “Because effective population sizes of Sonoran desert
tortoises are small, dispersal events probably play an important role
in the long-term maintenance of these populations.” This suggests that
while dispersal and movement of tortoises may be rare, they may be
important events. Therefore, barriers that prevent this movement could
result in significant genetic impacts, by preventing mixing of
populations over the long term.

The effect of urban barriers limits inter-population movements of
Sonoran desert tortoises resulting in “closed” populations. Experts
believe that an isolated population of Sonoran desert tortoises that
experiences significant declines in population size could not overcome
losses simply through an increase in reproduction, based on evidence of
past gene flow (Edwards et al. 2004, p. 496). Therefore, if a
population were to experience a catastrophic decline as a result of a
stochastic event such as drought, the immigration of new tortoises from
adjacent populations would be necessary for population recovery
(Edwards et al. 2004, p. 496). Urban barriers effectively prevent this
immigration of new tortoises, resulting in closed, or isolated, Sonoran
desert tortoise populations, which are now evident within the
metropolitan areas of Phoenix and Tucson. Mountains and associated
foothills with Sonoran desertscrub habitat occur in these urban areas,
and although development within this habitat has been restricted by
zoning laws, development is still allowed to virtually surround the
bases of the mountains, isolating tortoise populations. Examples of
this development include the Union Hills, White Tank Mountains,
McDowell Mountains, Black Mountains, and South Mountain Park in the
Phoenix metropolitan area and Tumamoc Hill, Tucson Mountains, and
Saguaro National Park West in the Tucson metropolitan area (Edwards et
al. 2004, p. 496). Zylstra and Swann (2009, pp. 10-11) remarked that
the increasing negative effect of human-made barriers on Sonoran desert
tortoise movements between populations may require translocation
(moving animals out of harm’s way into more secured areas of suitable
habitat), or occasional augmentation of populations with tortoises from
other populations, to remain viable.

Translocation has been considered an option, and implemented to
some degree for Mojave desert tortoise conservation and recovery. In
assessing the viability of translocation as a recovery and conservation
tool for the Mojave population, concern has been expressed for
potentially moving tortoises into areas where threats to desert
tortoise populations remain, which could negate any conservation value
associated with the action. Our (Mojave) Desert Tortoise Recovery
Office stresses that translocation of tortoises should not occur under
such circumstances, emphasizing the need to address threats which
impact all tortoises regardless of origin.

Translocation of desert tortoises has received mixed reviews in the
scientific literature and, as noted, may not be a viable option for the
Sonoran desert tortoise. There are several factors that must be
considered in deciding whether or not to translocate tortoises into new
areas, including temporary or longer-term holding conditions of
tortoises; the propensity for post-release, long-distance movements;
drought; the status of receiving population; and disease screening,
among other factors (Berry 1986a, p. 113; Field et al. 2007, pp. 232,
237, 240, 242; Martel et al. 2009, p. 218). Translocated Mojave desert
tortoises have been shown to settle at release sites, travel in
straight lines for substantial distances, or disperse up to
approximately 4 miles (6.4 km) (Berry 1986a, p. 113). Translocated
desert tortoises may disrupt social hierarchies in receiving
populations by displacing residents or they may be displaced themselves
(Berry 1986a, p. 113). Howland and Rorabaugh (2002, p. 341) suggest
that translocation of Sonoran desert tortoises may not be a viable tool
for conservation because most intact Sonoran desert tortoise
populations in Arizona are currently considered relatively healthy, and
likely occur at or near carrying capacity. Mullen and Ross (1997, pp.
145-146) found that translocated Mojave desert tortoises have a lower
survivorship than resident individuals (especially when moved during
the summer versus during the spring), but that negative effects
commonly associated with translocations are generally short-lived (1-2
years).

A 2004 population viability analysis for the Mojave desert tortoise
recommended that a minimum of 50,000 individuals are required for a 50
percent chance of persistence for 500 years, yet extrapolation of
Sonoran desert tortoise population data from southern Arizona suggest
that most populations number less than 20,000 individuals, with some as
low as several hundred (Edwards et al. 2004, p. 496). Because the
average generation time of a Sonoran desert tortoise is approximately
12-15 years and much of the urban development is relatively recent, the
full effect of developments as barriers to genetic exchange among
Sonoran desert tortoise populations cannot be fully assessed at this
time (Edwards et al. 2004, p. 486). Edwards et al. (2004, p. 495)
further cautioned that their estimates of gene flow are contingent on
what occurred pre-settlement, and should not be taken as evidence that
natural immigration or emigration still occurs.

In conclusion, the literature documents that urban development and
population growth, roads and highways, canals, railroad tracks, and
other types of development threaten the Sonoran desert tortoise by
creating barriers to movement in Arizona and, perhaps to a lesser
extent, in Sonora, Mexico. The creation of barriers affects the
tortoises’ genetic exchange capacity within and between populations,
which in turn affects their ability to recolonize habitat in the event
of population declines or extirpations, and may lead to isolation and
eventual genetic bottlenecking. This threat acts synergistically with
other factors as discussed above.

[Federal Register: December 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 239)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 78093-78146]

The litanty of threats to plants and animals containined in petitions for endangered species listings and in US Fish and Wildlife decision to list…read like sermons on the evil of huamn activity.

The next step in the process is to throw the net as far and as wide as possible to define where the threatened or endangered plant or animal lives, could live, or once lived.

For prime example, Center for Biological Diversity is pushing for a “critical habitat” designation of most of southern and eastern Arizona for the jaguar.

Not coincidentally all efforts to designate “critical habitat”  or “protected habitat” seem to intersect with proposed projects or existing activities the litigious environmental groups don’t like.

The “critical habitat” of many species pursued for listing and habitat protection cover all the riparian areas of the state, all grazing lands, and so forth.

Right now there is a fight going on about a protected habitat designation for the Chiricahua Leopard Frog, and the Center for Biological Diversity is pushing to have the proposed Rosemont Mine site designated as frog habitat.

Center for Biological Diversity demands Rosemont Mine site be included in protected habitat for frog

Why…because once a “critical habitat” or “proitected habitat” is designated, no one can do anything inside that declared “critical or protected habitat” without permission from US Fish and Wildlife.

You think you own your land or water? Not really if your land and water serves as designated critical or protected habitat for a threatened or endangered species, subspecies or  distinct population.
_________________________________________________
The Endangered Species Act series of articles:

Endangered Species Act…it ain’t what you think it is — Part 1

Endangered Species Act — Part 2– this land is not your land

Endangered Species Act – Part 3 – Never swat a fly

Background info on Endangered Species Act:

Endangered Species Act — an Introduction

Endangered Species Act — Which Animals and Plants are “Threatened” or “Endangered”?

Endangered Species Act — Section 7 Consultation 

Endangered Species Act — USF&W Introduction and Key Sections

Endangered Species Act — Definition of ”Harm” and “Take”

Endangered Species Act–Listing and Critical Habitat

Endangered Species Act–Habitat Conservation Plans

_________________________________________________________

News about litigious environment group activities:

Center for Biological Diversity at war with US Military

Center for Biological Diversity demands Rosemont Mine site be included in protected habitat for frog

Judge puts WildEarth Guardian endangered species agreement on hold

Center for Biological Diversity fights imperiled species deal

Stop The Drilling! A Lizard Is Imperiled

Desert Pupfish Forces Border Agents to Patrol on Foot

New high recorded in frivolous environmental litigation

EPA Doles-Out Taxpayer Dollars to Environmentalist Activist Groups

Legislation to stop huge legal fee payments to environmental litigation factories poised to be introduced

Environmental groups bury feds with Endangered Species petitions

The show is hosted by the Southern Arizona Green Chamber of Commerce.

By way of background, I worked on Capitol Hill for Mo Udall back in 1967 on the Central Arizona Project legislation, came back to Arizona and got a law degree and spent the next 40 years involved in water issues in Arizona.

Rosemont has a permit from the ADWR to pump 6,000 acre feet of groundwater a year for its proposed mine.

By contrast Farmers Investment Company (FICO) pumps close to 30,000 acre feet a year for its pecan groves and has been doing so for over 50 years.

The mines west of Green Valley pump another 40,000 acre feet a year.

Green Valley and Sahuarita’s private water companies pump around 6,000 acre feet a year for residentrial use and another 5,000 acree feet a year is puped to irrigate golf courses.

There is a massive groundwater overdraft in the Green Valley area.

The Central Arizona project has a 30,000 acre foot capacity CAP recharge facility at the north end of Sahuarita next to the San Xavier Indian Reservation which recharges water for the Indians and the city of Tucson.

But with over 80,000 acre feet of pumping, the deifict for recharge is still 50,000 acre feet.

Community Water Company in Green Valley wants to construct a new CAp recharge facility father south in the area and recharge 30,000 plus acre feet of water and Rosemont has agreed to pay a big share of the cost of this project and recharge the 6,000 acre feet a year t would pump for the mine.

Oddly FICO has been opposing the Community Water project, even though FICO is one of the most vocal opponents of the mine.

I am the executive director of the Center for Sustainable Development and am involved in the Green Valley area water issues. I do not work for Rosemont.

Time to stop ‘delay as a form of denial’ on Rosemont Copper mine

 By Hugh Holub,

Inside Tucson Business |

A common strategy by opponents of anything new – especially in Pima County – is called “delay as a form of denial.”

The scheme involves gumming up the decision-making process with demands for additional studies, appeals to governmental entities, lawsuits and whatever other tactic that can put off a final decision.

By stalling long enough, the backers of the project will either go bankrupt from the costs of trying to meet the demands, the market for the project evaporates or the applicant just goes away, tired of putting up a fight.

Meanwhile, the public never gets an opportunity to offer their opinions on a project.

An example of  “delay as a form of denial”  is the fight over the proposed Rosemont Copper mine in the Santa Rita Mountains.

More….

And some additional comments about economic development in the region:

Pima County spends big, working overtime to kill Rosemont Copper Mine

Sonoran Desert Tortoise to be next poster child to stop progress

In business parlance, Tucson means ‘can’t do’

Pima County sends message to foreign investors: stay away

Ever wonder why our local economy sucks?

Report argues Tucsonans value scenery more than their paychecks

Rosemont mine fight is all about ranting and not about problem solving

A few questions about mining, economic development and socialism

Tucson needs to change attitude and attract foreign investment

Pima County spends big, working overtime to kill Rosemont Copper Mine

By Hugh Holub

Here is another example why Pima County has become famous for being anti-economic development: As most everyone knows, county leaders are virulently opposed to the proposed Rosemont Copper Mine on the east side of the Santa Rita Mountains.

On March 9, County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry issued another lengthy screed against the mine project entitled “Proposed Rosemont Mine – Three Dimensional Model for Public Education Unknown Mitigation, Comparatively Low Tex Rates and High Profitability.”

Business leaders ought to read this to appreciate just how far Pima County will go to trash a multi-billion dollar investment in the region.

At the conclusion the report states: “Although election results are only one way to measure the values and views of a community, they do provide an indicator as to what a community desires. This community has consistently voted for conservation of our natural and cultural resources for over 30 years. Any mine proposal of this magnitude in this location is inconsistent with this ethic.”

However, the report fails to note the privately owned property where the Rosemont copper deposit is located was not included on the list of target properties Pima wanted to acquire with its open space bond issue. And the report fails to note that when offered the property by the former owner, Pima County rejected it. …

….It’s time taxpayers started asking: How much taxpayer money is Pima County going to spend to try to kill billions of dollars of investment in this region?

More…

Read the Pima Report on Rosemont

CAP Water in Green Valley  a Town Hall Forum

Hosted by the GVCCC Environmental Committee

At the GVR West Social Center,
1111 Via Arco Iris  Green Valley

Time: 1:30 pm to 3:00 pm

Speakers will include:

• Ray Carroll, District 4 Pima County Supervisor
• Arizona Corporation Commission Representative
• Larry Dozier, Deputy Director Central Arizona
Project (CAP)
• Bob Hedden, Chairman Green Valley Water District
and Upper Santa Cruz Providers and Users Group
• Nan Walden, Vice President Farmers Investment
Company (FICO)
• Virgil Davis, President Community Water

Note: There are some serious issues about the proposed CAP recharge projects in Green Valley. Even though other water users such s FICO complain about the Rosemont Mine’s proposed groundwater puping, FICO, Pima County and the City of Tucson are trying to block Rosemont from actually doing CAP recharge in Green Valley.

From: Arizona News Telegraph —Green Valley

 Don’t play games with CAP recharge in Green Valley

The water table beneath Green Valley and Sahuarita is dropping.

All hydrology studies done in the area show the water table will continue to drop for the foreseeable future because there is a lot of groundwater pumping going on between the mines, FICO and area water utilities and golf courses that is not being replenished with Central Arizona Project (CAP) water.

Only new urban development is required to replenish the groundwater being pumped. Two area water utilities.Community Water Company and the Green Valley Domestic Water Improvement District have contracts to buy Central Arizona Project (CAP) water. But they cannot directly use CAP water because there is no CAP Terminal Storage facility to firm up local water deliveries. The only option for the local CAP contract water companies is to recharge their CAP water to offset their groundwater pumping.

FICO’s water company Farmers Water,  the Sahuarita Water Company that serves Rancho Sahuarita and others in the area serving new development do not have CAP contracts.

New development in Rancho Sahuarita,  Quail Creek and other areas pay a fee or assessment to the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District (CAGRD) which goes out and buys CAP water and recharges it. Unfortunately for the water table in Green Valley, the CAGRD recharge occurs in Marana which has a rising groundwater table. There is no state mandate CAGRD recharges in the area where groundwater is mined.

FICO, Freeport, Asarco and Rosemont are under no  state legal mandate to replenish the groundwater they pump. Just between FICO, Freeport and Asarco, over 60,000 acre feet of groundwater can be pumped annually without any recharge requirement. Unless all that pumping in subjected to a recharge obligation, the depth to groundwater in the area will keep dropping as it has for decades due to this exempt pumping.

Rosemont will add another 5,000 to 6,000 acre feet to the demand on the aquifer. Some claim Rosemont’s proposed pumping is the problem in the area. In act, it is only about 10% of the problem.

Even though the Tucson Active Management Area  (TAMA) administered by the Arizona Department of Water Resources is mandated by law to achieve “safe yield” by 2025.meaning no more groundwater is mined than is artificially or naturally recharged in the TAMA. Studies show we will fail in this goal.

Under ADWR and TAMA rules, the “safe yield” balance is more mathematical than related to actual water table levels. Thus it is OK to mine groundwater in the Green Valley area  resulting in the local water table to keep dropping and recharge CAP water in Marana so the water table there can rise.

 There is no legal mandate in the TAMA to prevent local aquifers from experiencing long term declines, as there is in the Santa Cruz Active Management area to the south of Green Valley.

 This may be good for Marana, but it means big problems in the future for Sahuarita and Green Valley.

 One obvious solution is to expand CAP recharge capacity in Sahuarita and Green Valley.

 The existing Pima Mine Road recharge project does not have the capacity to allow replenishment of all the groundwater pumping that is allowed in the area. Plus the Pima Mine Road recharge project is down-gradient from the wells serving the area, so recharge at that site does not protect the water table farther south under GVDWID’s, CWC’s and Quail Creeks water service areas.

 There are two competing proposals to expand CAP recharge capacity in the area.one led by Community Water Company (CWC)  and one led by FICO.

 There is a significant difference between the two proposals. Under the CWC plan the Rosemont copper mine would be able to recharge an equal amount of CAP water for what they will pump in the Sahuarita Heights area. Under the FICO recharge proposal Rosemont would not be allowed to recharge CAP water in its project.

 Both recharge projects are currently being stymied by a bottleneck in the CAP water line that runs from the end of the CAP line just west of I-19 and Pima Mine Road over to the Pima Mine Road recharge site. Any new CAP recharge project needs to connect to this line and eliminate the bottleneck.

 The existing CAP line can’t handle another 30,000 acre feet of CAP water delivery needed to offset the groundwater pumping by Rancho Sahuarita, FICO’s farm operation and future land development, area water companies, Freeport’s mine, and Rosemont. The bottleneck will have to be removed.

 The City of Tucson, which controls this CAP line and a large share of the Pima Mine Road recharge project has taken the position that no “third party” can access the line or increase its capacity.especially Rosemont. I suspect Tucson would allow FICO to connect as long as Rosemont had no access.

 Thus we have the City of Tucson, which claims to be a leader in good regional water management, working behind the scenes to block Rosemont from being able to recharge CAP water.

 There is something really fishy going on in Green Valley.

 FICO, which is one of the largest pumpers of mined groundwater complains about Rosemont’s ADWR approved groundwater use. This is a classic case of the “pot calling the kettle black”.

 One would think that if FICO was so concerned about the potential impacts of Rosemont’s groundwater pumping, they would be doing everything they could to get Rosemont into a CAP recharge project. Instead FICO is doing just the opposite.

 I am speculating that FICO’s theory is that if Rosemont is somehow denied the ability to recharge CAP water, that will somehow convince the federal government to deny Rosemont permission to use Coronado National Forest land for the proposed mine. Support for this speculation comes from FICO’s attempts to link the mine project to the environmental assessment of CWC’s proposed CAP recharge project. FICO failed in that attempt.

 FICO wanted the environmental evaluation of the CWC CAP recharge project to include everything related to the proposed mine. The feds said there wasn’t any link and that the CAP recharge effort stood alone as being positive for the environment, regardless of any benefit Rosemont might get.

 CWC’s recharge effort is for the benefit of everyone in Green Valley. It is not, as some claim, a “Rosemont project”. CWC was just smart enough to get some financial backing for their recharge project from another outfit that could also benefit.

 Unfortunately for FICO’s theory, the federal government has no jurisdiction over groundwater rights and uses in Arizona. Arizona is fairly defensive of its state’s rights, and control of water rights is one of those state rights that is absolutely beyond federal control.

 Rosemont already has its ADWR  state permit to pump groundwater for use in its mining project. FICO actually fought the permit for Rosemont with ADWR and lost.

 State law does not require Rosemont to do anything to mitigate its planned groundwater pumping.just as state law does not mandate FICO or Freeport from mitigating the impacts of their substantially greater amounts of groundwater pumping.

 The water supply for the mine is a done deal.

 On one hand FICO complains about Rosemont’s proposed groundwater pumping and obviously would like the federal government to condition approval of the mine of Rosemont being mandated to replenish its groundwater pumping, and then FICO turns right around and proposes a CAP recharge project that excludes Rosemont’s ability to participate.

 The people of Sahuarita and Green Valley need to recognize that getting the maximum amount of CAP recharge going in the area is absolutely in everyone’s best interest to reduce the decline in the aquifer beneath the area.

 There can be no exceptions to recharging CAP water.

 Everyone pumping groundwater needs to be part of the solution and replenish their pumping with CAP water recharge under Green Valley and Sahuarita.

 Attempts to use the CAP recharge issue as a weapon against Rosemont are contrary to the public interest of everyone in the upper Santa Cruz Valley.

 FICO should be challenged for trying to hold CAP recharge hostage to opposition to Rosemont.

 The City of Tucson in working with FICO should also be challenged  in its attempt at  blocking maximum sustainability solutions for Green Valley. Tucson is blocking sound water management in Green Valley and Sahuarita for political purposes aligning itself with opponents of the mine.

 I strongly encourage everyone to merge their efforts and come up with one CAP recharge project which will allow all groundwater users to replenish what they pump.FICO, Rosemont,  Freeport, Sahuarita, Community Water, and everyone else.

 Take the money Rosemont is willing to spend in support of the CAP recharge project and keep CAP recharge project development out of the mine permitting fight. If Rosemont doesn’t get their federal permit.let them sell whatever CAP recharge capacity they pay for to someone else who can use it.