The Arizona Geological Survey (AZGS) has just published its study of the mineral potential of the Sonoran Desert Heritage Area (see full study here, 25Mb). Establishment of the heritage area, which consists of several detached conservation areas and wilderness areas, would prevent mineral exploration and development on almost one million acres west of Phoenix. A general location map, with mineral potential is shown below:

 The AZGS assessment was limited to the following types of deposits: (1) sand and gravel (aggregates), which are used for concrete and asphalt, (2) porphyry copper deposits, which may yield large amounts of byproduct molybdenum, silver, and gold, (3) gold deposits in veins, some of which contain substantial silver, and (4) manganese deposits.

Some highlights from the report:

Aggregates:

“Rapid population growth in the greater Phoenix metropolitan area over the past several decades required enormous amounts of aggregate for construction of new homes, buildings, roads, and other facilities and infrastructure. Once urban development occurs, however, underlying aggregate resources are no longer accessible, and nearby resources may become inaccessible because of concerns about noise, dust, and truck traffic associated with quarry operations. Transportation costs, a major factor in aggregate costs, increase greatly if aggregate must be imported from distant areas.”

AZGS has identified five areas within and adjacent to the Heritage Area that are especially favorable as a supply for much needed aggregates.

Precious metal deposits:

The Harquahala – Big Horn Mountains area, which is included in the Heritage plan, has geology favorable for gold vein deposits. The map below shows the northern part of the area. On the map, orange areas show existing wilderness areas, purple areas show Sonoran Desert Heritage proposed wilderness areas, and the light blue line shows the boundary of the proposed Sonoran Desert Heritage National Conservation Area.

Small mines and prospects within the proposed conservation area have produced 506,000 ounces of gold and 549,000 ounces of silver.

Copper Deposits:

Arizona is the center of one of the world’s three great clusters of porphyry copper deposits

(the other two are in northern and central Chile). At the current copper price, Arizona total copper production from 1874-2010, would be worth $472 billion.

The Big Horn Mountains contain rocks of the right type and age for large copper deposits. Historic mining in the Big Horn Mountains yielded millions of pounds of copper and lead as might be expected for mineralization peripheral to a porphyry copper deposit.

The Gila Bend Mountains to the south are largely covered by younger volcanic rocks. The uncertainty in evaluating the possibility of porphyry copper deposits is high because of this cover, but there are enough indications of mineral deposits, including minor production from the Webb district (27,000 lbs. historic copper production) and scattered evidence of historic prospecting and small mines, that this area is considered to have moderate potential for porphyry copper deposits.

Manganese:

Manganese is used in the production of steel. Currently, the U.S. imports 100% of its manganese. Numerous manganese deposits are scattered over a large region in western Arizona and extend into southeastern California. These deposits are low grade (generally only a few percent Mn) and formed during the past 25 million years. Most historic production occurred between 1953 and 1955 when the US Government purchased manganese at above-market prices. Total historic production is ~100,000 metric tons of manganese (226 million lbs.) from 24 mining districts.

The Aguila manganese mineral district, with 42 million pounds of historic manganese production, is within the proposed SDH National Conservation Area in the northern Big Horn

Mountains. The Black Dome district, with 344 thousand pounds of historic manganese production, is located north of the Hieroglyphic proposed Special Management Area.

Manganese in these districts has not been in economic concentrations historically, but could become so if serious supply disruptions occur and/or prices increase sufficiently, see map below.

The study should be considered an overview assessment. Note that the Arizona Geological Survey is serving as a scientific advisor and is not advocating any position, but I will. The Sonoran Desert Heritage Area proposal, if passed at all, should be reduced to exclude areas with medium to high mineral potential as a matter of economic and national security. If established there should be no additional “buffer areas” adjacent to the heritage area.

See also:

The importance of minerals to our economy and national security

NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, was signed into law in 1970 by President Richard Nixon with the intent to assess environmental impacts of Federal projects. “In enacting NEPA, Congress recognized that nearly all Federal activities affect the environment in some way and mandated that before Federal agencies make decisions, they must consider the effects of their actions on the quality of the human environment.” NEPA is administered by the Council on Environmental Quality within the Executive Office of the President.

Although established with good intentions, the reality is that NEPA has turned into a byzantine bureaucratic maze that stifles productivity. For instance, remember a few years ago when President Obama touted “shovel ready projects” to get the economy working again? Well, those “shovel ready projects” were delayed because they had to contend with NEPA. Before a single shovel can hit the dirt it usually takes more than five years for the average Federal project to jump through all the normal environmental hoops. Some private projects take longer, for example the proposed Rosemont Copper project is seven years into the permitting process.

Hal Quinn, president of the National Mining Association, notes that permit delays are among the biggest hurdles for mineral development. “The length, complexity and uncertainty of the permitting process are the primary reasons investors give for not investing is U.S. minerals mining. In the U.S., necessary government authorizations now take close to 10 years to secure, resulting in decreased competitiveness and increased reliance on foreign sources of minerals.” Permitting time in Canada and Australia is typically less than two years.

That being said, let’s look at how NEPA should theoretically work. The Council on Environmental Quality has published a Citizen’s Guide to NEPA, which I will summarize with excerpts and comments:

NEPA applies to a very wide range of Federal actions that include, but are not limited to, Federal construction projects, plans to manage and develop Federally owned lands, and Federal approvals of non-Federal activities such as grants, licenses, and permits.

NEPA requires Federal agencies to consider environmental effects that include, among others, impacts on social, cultural, and economic resources, as well as natural resources.

Frequently, private individuals, companies, and municipalities will become involved in the NEPA process when they need a permit issued by a Federal agency. Federal agencies usually require the private company or developer to pay for the preparation of analyses, but the agency remains responsible for the scope and accuracy of the analysis.

Although many Federal agencies get involved, there are three Federal agencies that have particular responsibilities for NEPA. Primary responsibility is vested in the Council on Environmental Quality. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviews environmental impact statements (EIS) and some environmental assessments (EA) issued by Federal agencies. The third agency is the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (located within the Morris K. Udall Foundation, a Federal agency located in Tucson). This agency is supposed to provide an independent, neutral, place for Federal agencies to work with citizens as well as State, local, and Tribal governments, private organizations, and businesses to reach common ground.

Navigating the NEPA process:

Once the lead Federal agency has received a proposed action, it has three possible actions: it can issue a Categorical Exclusion (CE), require an Environmental Assessment (EA), or require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

A Categorical Exclusion means that the agency has determined that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.

In an Environmental Assessment, the purpose is to determine the significance of the environmental effects and to look at alternative means to achieve the agency’s objectives. The EA is intended to be a concise document that (1) briefly provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an EIS; (2) aids an agency’s compliance with NEPA when no environmental impact statement is necessary; and (3) facilitates preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement when one is necessary. The EA process concludes with either a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or a determination to proceed to preparation of an EIS.

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is the big, expensive, time-consuming process. A Federal agency must prepare an EIS if it is proposing a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. [In actual practice, a private company such as a mining company prepares a draft EIS and submits it to the Federal agency.] It begins with publication of a Notice of Intent (NOI), stating the agency’s intent to prepare an EIS for a particular proposal. The NOI is published in the Federal Register, and provides some basic information on the proposed action in preparation for the scoping process. The NOI provides a brief description of the proposed action and possible alternatives. It also describes the agency’s proposed scoping process, including any meetings and how the public can get involved.

The next major step in the EIS process is when the agencies submit a draft EIS for public comment. The agency must analyze the full range of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the preferred alternative, if any, and of the reasonable alternatives identified in the draft EIS.

When the public comment period is finished, the agency analyzes comments, conducts further analysis as necessary, and prepares the final EIS. In the final EIS, the agency must respond to the substantive comments received from other government agencies and from the public.

When it is ready, the agency will publish the final EIS and EPA will publish a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. There is an additional (but rarely used) procedure worth noting: pre-decision referrals to CEQ. This referral process takes place when EPA or another Federal agency determines that proceeding with the proposed action is environmentally unacceptable. If an agency reaches that conclusion, the agency can refer the issue to CEQ within 25 days after the Notice of Availability for the final EIS is issued. CEQ then works to resolve the issue with the agencies concerned. CEQ might also refer the agencies to the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution to try to address the matter before formal elevation.

The end of the process is the Record of Decision (ROD), a document that states what the decision is; identifies the alternatives considered, including the environmentally preferred alternative; and discusses mitigation plans, including any enforcement and monitoring commitments.

What I have described above is the streamlined NEPA process. But we are not done yet. Sometimes a Federal agency is obligated to prepare a supplement to an existing EIS if it makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns, or if there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts. An agency may also prepare a supplemental EIS if it determines that doing so will further the purposes of NEPA. A supplemental EIS is prepared in the same way as a draft or final EIS, except that scoping is not required. If a supplement is prepared following a draft EIS, the final EIS will address both the draft EIS and supplemental EIS.

In actual practice, the NEPA process is complicated by lawsuits and sometimes by foot-dragging Federal agencies. There are no statutory time limits imposed upon Federal agencies to complete the NEPA process. The NEPA process is long and complicated, and environmental groups have used this to their advantage to cause delay after delay in the hope that the project would become too expensive to continue. From Enviro Defenders legal handbook: “Though a lawsuit by itself will seldom stop a project, it can serve as an important element of a larger campaign to do so.”

A 2007 Congressional Research Service report notes: “As a procedural statute, the courts have ruled that NEPA does not require agencies to elevate environmental concerns above others. Instead, NEPA requires only that the agency assess the environmental consequences of an action and its alternatives before proceeding. If the adverse environmental effects of the proposed action are adequately identified and evaluated, the agency is not constrained by NEPA from deciding that other benefits outweigh the environmental costs and moving forward with the action.”

It seems that Australia and Canada have found a more efficient way to move forward while addressing environmental issues. The U.S. economy would benefit by taking note of their methods.

If you found it exhausting just reading about NEPA, imaging how it is trying to comply with it.

(This article first appeared in the Arizona Daily Independent.)

See also:

Mining and the bureaucracy

Uncorrected Forest Service errors block marble mine

A giant crack has been widening on the Navajo Reservation near the small town of Leupp, Arizona. The crack occurs 12 miles north of Interstate 40 about half way between Flagstaff and Winslow.

The Navajo Post has a photograph and short video of the crack. Arizona State Geologist Lee Allison has two short posts on the crack here and here.  Photos and a geologic map are included in those posts.

The crack is along an extensional fault system mapped in 1984 by George Billingsley of the U.S. Geological Survey. Movement on the fault may be related to the numerous small earthquakes in the area (see Arizona is earthquake country) that derive from crustal extension. The 900-foot long crack is parallel to joints in the Kaibab Limestone.

According to the Navajo Post, the crack has gotten so big that it had to be fenced in.

The photo below shows the crack just south of Leupp Road.

See also:

Earth Fissures in Arizona

Earthquake hazard near Flagstaff assessed, Video

Photos and video of Highway 89 slump near Page Arizona

Arizona Geologic History: Chapter 1, Precambrian Time When Arizona was at the South Pole

Arizona Geological History: Chapter 2, Cambrian and Ordovician Time

Arizona Geological History: Chapter 3: Devonian to Permian Time

Arizona Geological History Chapter 4: Triassic Period

Arizona Geological History Chapter 5: Jurassic Time

Arizona Geological History 6, The Cretaceous Period

Arizona Geological History 7: The Cenozoic Era