A fight over the size of a power line for the Rosemont Mine has begun between Pima County’s Administrator and Rosemont Copper’s CEO. The County is pushing the cause of the mine’s opponents who are doing everything they can to stop the mine, most notable among them, County Supervisor Ray Carroll.
The County’s Administrator Chuck Huckelberry wrote to the Forest Service to argue that because Rosemont Copper also has mineral rights in other areas of the Santa Rita Mountains, putting in a smaller power line now, would force the mine to seek new approvals for more power later.
Rosemont’s CEO, Rod Pace, has denied any plans to mine those other deposits, and called Huckelberry’s recent letter to the Forest Service “disingenuous.”
In response to the false claims by opponents (see letter below) Pace wrote, “Pima County, unfortunately, has recently released misleading and inaccurate information about our project and its impacts throughout the process. This latest letter from Mr.Huckelberry is an attempt by Pima County leadership to stop an important new business opportunity for our community, which will create badly needed jobs and result in significant direct and indirect benefits to southern Arizona.”
November 1, 2012
Jim Upchurch
Forest Supervisor
Coronado National Forest
300 W. Congress Street
Tucson, AZ 85701RE: 10/25/12 C.H. Huckelberry letter to Forest Service Supervisor Jim Upchurch
Dear Supervisor Upchurch:
This letter is in response to the recent Pima County letter to the U.S. Forest Service.
The U.S. Forest Service has led a thoughtful, thorough and comprehensive examination of the Rosemont Copper Project over the past six years. In completing the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the Forest Service evaluated and considered thousands of public comments, hundreds of technical studies and reports, and technical input from nearly 20 local, state and federal entities serving as cooperating agencies.
Pima County staff has been involved in this process every step of the way as one of the cooperating agencies, and has had the opportunity and obligation to provide timely technical input and comments on the project.
As a “cooperator” (active participant) in the Forest Service’s six-year, exhaustive environmental study of Rosemont Copper, it is disingenuous for Mr. Huckleberry to submit a last minute, critical letter on behalf of Pima County.
All of the studies and analysis completed during the agency review process have helped make the plan of operations for the Rosemont Copper Project even more protective of the environment and the public.
Pima County, unfortunately, has recently released misleading and inaccurate information about our project and its impacts throughout the process. This latest letter from Mr.Huckelberry is an attempt by Pima County leadership to stop an important new business opportunity for our community, which will create badly needed jobs and result in significant direct and indirect benefits to southern Arizona.
Mr. Huckelberry’s letter shows that Pima County either misunderstands the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or instead is abusing the process by submitting this letter.
Rather than providing technical input as required of a cooperator, the letter misstates and exaggerates with the goal of delaying the Rosemont Project. The changes made to theBarrel Alternative are not “substantial changes” to the proposed action, but instead reflect changes that are a logical outgrowth of the comments received on the draft EIS
Here are the facts:
1. Rosemont’s changes to the Barrel Alternative have not substantially changed the project’s area of disturbance.
Rosemont’s decision to eliminate the heap leach facilities and underdrain system (which the EPA and Pima County objected to) from the Barrel Alternative was based on both technical and environmental considerations. These changes result in fewer environmental impacts. The basic project footprint and the project’s primary facilities are unchanged. The County’s own map illustrates this very clearly.
2. Rosemont’s changes will result in a de minimus increase in material extracted.
Rosemont’s updated feasibility study indicates that the resource is slightly larger than previously reported, resulting in greater economic benefits for the community. The additional recoverable resource will result in just four percent more material removal than studied in the EIS, not enough to result in substantially different impacts
3. Rosemont has modified its drainage plans in response to agency comments.
The NEPA process is designed to encourage changes that respond to information and comments in order to reduce environmental impacts. Accordingly, Rosemont and the Forest Service have worked together to address changes requested by the
Forest as those changes relate to storm water management and drainage. For the
County to state that these changes require a Supplemental EIS is to abuse the purpose of NEPA (see below).
4. The impacts of oxide waste rock have been thoroughly studied.
Rosemont has eliminated oxide ore processing do to the enhanced ability to recover marginal grade material at long-term copper prices, in combination with the elimination of space in the Barrel Alternative. The geochemical studies associated with the EIS actually counted the oxide ore as waste rock and therefore addressed any concerns. Finally, the elimination of oxide ore processing will result in a de minimus increase in new waste rock storage.
5. The Draft EIS thoroughly studied all issues related to the Forest Service’s Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) designation for the Santa Rita Mountains.
Changes to the TCP designation by the Forest Service do not trigger the need for additional studies. In fact it was the Rosemont Project that triggered the investigation into the potential classification. Even with the changes, all relevant studies have been conducted.
6. The Aquifer Protection Permit terms validate the draft EIS conclusions about water quality.
The APP is specific and thorough, and does not conflict with the analysis that is contained in the draft EIS. The terms of the APP do not constitute significant new information not already studied in the draft EIS, and regardless would not triggerthe need for supplemental analysis. The APP is a permit issued by a State Agency, ADEQ, who is cooperating in the EIS process. There is no decision that the State will make that can significantly change the decisions made during the EIS process.
7. Tucson Electric Power chose the appropriate-sized transmission line through a rigorous public process.
TEP determined that a 138 MW line is the appropriate size to provide service to
Rosemont. Rosemont requested service from TEP and as the power provider they determined the appropriate size of the transmission lines to service the load.
Transmission best practices dictate that a line should not be pressed to its upper limit but should have excess capacity. There are no other proposals by Rosemont or any other potential mine operator to utilize the transmission line, and therefore no potential cumulative impacts for the Forest Service to study.
8. Rosemont is not mining west of the crest of the Santa Rita Mountains.
Mine operations are carefully engineered to avoid the crest. It is curious that the
County persists in trying to map facilities when Rosemont has provided any number of maps to illustrate operational plans. Further, the County has been notified that their GIS system is off by tens of feet.
Clearly, Mr. Huckelberry’s latest letter is merely a political tactic and an affront to the hard work put in by all of the groups who have conscientiously strived to provide the research and the analysis mandated under NEPA.
Overall, Mr. Huckelberry’s letter confuses disappointment with the outcome of the analysis and conclusions reached in the draft EIS with the adequacy of that document. A robust public comment process is central to NEPA. The agency must respond to those comments and may supplement, revise or modify its analysis of the environmental impacts based on those comments in the final EIS. Indeed, the existence of such disagreement indicates that the process is functioning as intended and will ensure that legitimate environmental concerns are considered.
Moreover, the Supreme Court has stated that an agency is not required to supplement an
Environmental Impact Statement every time new information comes to light. To require otherwise would render agency decision-making intractable, always awaiting updated information only to find the new information outdated by the time a decision is made.
Unfortunately, Pima County’s strategy is to confuse and delay the NEPA process, as opposed to working cooperatively with the Forest Service and other agencies.
This late attack shows that the county has effectively relinquished its role as a cooperator and is instead simply acting as an advocate for Rosemont opponents. As such, the letter should be taken by the Forest Service in the same context as all of the other communications from private citizens, business leaders, and labor representatives, hundreds of whom have written letters supporting this project, and asking for timely completion of the process.
Sincerely,
Rod Pace
President/CEO