|
|
Problems with the scoping process
Rosemont claims the mine will be 30 miles from Tucson Repeatedly the location of the mine has been referenced as 30 miles SE of Tucson. This is true if you are measuring to the city center. To view the proximity to Tucson and other concerned locations click here Rosemont claims 5,000 acre feet of water per year 2.8.3 Production Plan (part of the MPO) "The feasibility study and preliminary design for the Rosemont Project indicate that the water requirements are approximately 5,000 af per year with a peak delivery volume of 5,000 gpm"Water estimates according to the MPO indicate that the water requirements are
approximately 5,000 acre feet per year with a peak delivery volume of 5,000 gpm.
This number is used repeatedly in the media.
However Rosemont has permits with the Arizona Department of Water
Resources to withdraw up to 6,000 acre feet per year, and an article in the
Arizona Daily Star from 5/28/2008 said "a
mine the size of the one proposed by Rosemont Copper normally would use enough
water every year to supply 40,000 households.
Officials with Rosemont Copper say they will only use half that much —
5,000 to 8,000 acre-feet a year — by using techniques developed for mining in
extremely arid climates.” Rosemont
claims they are purchasing and storing 105,000 acre feet of cap water and tells
the public they will only use 95,000 acre feet (19 years at 5,000 acre feet per
year) leaving the public with an excess of 10,000 acre feet.
However if the 8,000 Acre feet estimate is used they will use 152,000
acre feet. In this case they would draw 47,000 acre feet more than they
will store. From an article in the Arizona Daily Star dated 6/24/2006 "The company's goal is to buy and store between 50,000 and 70,000 acre-feet of "excess" CAP water for possible use at the Rosemont project if it is permitted" From an article in the Arizona Daily Star dated 11/19/2007 "Jamie Sturgess, Augusta's vice president for projects and environment, said he doesn't believe the company's wells will cause a drop in the water table because the company plans to put 105,000 acre-feet into the aquifer, 5,000 more than it proposes to pump. There are 325,829 gallons in an acre-foot, enough to cover an acre with a foot of water — the amount of water an average family of four uses in a year." From an article in the Arizona Daily Star dated 5/28/2008 "But officials with Rosemont Copper say they will only use half that much — 5,000 to 8,000 acre-feet a year — by using techniques developed for mining in extremely arid climates." "In January, the Arizona Department of Water Resources issued Rosemont a withdrawal permit for 6,000 acre-feet a year." "Fred Tahse, a retired geologist and opponent of the mine, said he doesn't believe dry stacking has been used enough to guarantee Rosemont's water use predictions. How realistic is that 6,000 acre-feet? he said. That's up in the air." "We could have applied for any amount we could show we would need," Sturgess said. "We could have applied for 16,000 acre feet, but we didn't." How much land do they actually own/lease/want etc...? How much land does Rosemont actually own, lease, or want? From an article in the Arizona Daily Star dated 10/13/2007 “the copper mine will be built on the Rosemont Ranch, A 20,000 acre ranch about 30 miles South of Tucson. An article in the Tucson Weekly dated 1/24/2008 says “Augusta has been snatching up properties around Rosemont Valley in the Santa Rita mountains and currently owns 18 separate parcels including leased government land totaling about 30,000 acres. From an article in the Arizona Daily Star dated 3/13/2008 "The 4,755-acre Rosemont Copper Project would be built on 995 acres of private land, 3,670 acres of national forest, 15 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management and 75 acres of state trust land, according to a Forest Service announcement of the impact statement." From an article in the World Mining Stocks from Sept of 2007 “The company has accumulated a land package covering some 14,000 acres, plus a further 20,000 acres of grazing lease for the cattle ranch it will continue to run throughout the life of mine. Included in their holdings are the Rosemont deposit plus Peach-Elgin, Broad Top Butte and also the Copper World prospects. During a recent interview, Mr Clausen noted that, although developing Rosemont was clearly the company’s primary focus, the three other properties offered opportunities for further exploration, especially including Broad Top Butte as the Rosemont deposit is open to the north and east directly toward where Broad Top is located.” The article makes it clear that Augusta has no intentions of stopping with the Rosemont Mine. Rosemont may be where they plan to start but it looks like they intend on pursuing several future mines along the Sonoita-Patagonia Scenic route, and one on the west side on the Santa Rita's which will be visible from Green Valley. Augusta is not making it clear to the public what their future intentions are in the Santa Rita's, nor can the cumulative impact of exploiting all of these deposits be considered. How many jobs? When the Rosemont proposal was first introduced an article in the Arizona Daily Star dated 6/24/2006 quoted Jaime Sturgess stating the mine would employ an estimated 350 people. In the minutes from a meeting by the Committee on Natural Resources held 2/4/2007 Mr. Sturgess stated "This mine will produce 5 percent of the national domestic demand for copper for 20 years. The mine also brings high- paying jobs. Rosemont mine will employ 400 people at an average annual income of $59,000 per year. Our previous estimate was 350 people. The latest is four hundred. In addition, there will be at least 700 indirect positions here in the Pima County community. A total of more than one thousand new jobs in the community for 20 years." In an article in the Arizona Daily Star dated 4/13/2008 "Mine executives emphasize that the mine will create 500 direct and 1,000 indirect jobs and boost the Tucson-area economy to the tune of about $250 million a year. However, they acknowledge that mining is a dirty business that causes environmental side effects." Which number is correct? How much traffic? Section 2.10 of the MPO
concerning Transportation states “The most sensitive times of the day are
considered to be around shift change and early weekday mornings and afternoons
during school bus hours on SR 83. Van pools for employees and staggered work
shifts will be used to reduce the number of trips during these times of the
day.” Where will the parking lots
be located so workers can be picked up by the vans? Is this voluntary transportation or mandated. Are there
examples where this type of shuttle was used by companies with employee
participation? Also all numbers referring to truck traffic are presented as
round trip numbers not reflecting the true volume of traffic. Obstruction of Information? Augusta/Rosemont's public relations firm has taken actions whose intent would seem to be to prevent the organizations opposing the proposed mine from disseminating the information to the public. They have purchased "savethescenicsantaritas.org" website name as well as "norosemontmine.com", "stoprosemont.com". Who knows how many others? Try the following domain name and see what happens, www.norosemontmine.com. Read about their website names. When must Forest Service comments be submitted by? When does the public commenting period for the scoping process actually end? Numerous statements from Forest Service personnel have indicated that public comments will be accepted after 7/14/08. From an article in the Tucson Citizen published 6/9/2008 "The service will not stop taking comments after the official comment period ends July 14, a spokeswoman said. We will continue to accept comments past that point, said Heidi Schewel of the Coronado National Forest." From an article in the Green Valley News and Sun published 6/10/2008 "The Forest Service will hold another hearing on June 30 at Rincon High School in Tucson and will continue taking comments after the official comment period ends July 14, a spokeswoman announced at the meeting. Comments can be given in several formats and information is available on the Web site of the Coronado National Forest." From an article in the Arizona Daily Star published 6/11/2008 "U.S. Reps. Raúl Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords, both Tucson Democrats, wrote Derby last month seeking to have the scoping effort started over. They said their constituents and local government officials are confused about deadlines for submitting comments." From an article in the Arizona Daily Star published 5/28/2008 "U.S. Reps. Gabrielle Giffords and Raúl Grijalva want the Forest Service to restart what's known as the entire "scoping" process. That's when the agency actively seeks comments, questions and descriptions of alternatives to the Rosemont project from the public and local governments. The undertaking began in March and is scheduled to end on July 14. Then, the service would start preparing a draft environmental statement, scheduled to be released in March 2009." The Citizen Guide to the NEPA process clearly states “if you feel strongly that a particular alternative should be addressed and you don’t raise it during the scoping process then it won’t get the benefit of comparative analysis with the other alternatives.” Our question is will comments and alternative options received after 7/14/08 receive the comprehensive analysis like those received before that date? If not then we feel the forest service has misled the public and hindered the timely efforts necessary to get their comments in by the scoping process deadline. Many in the public think the mine is a "done deal", I can see why Many in the public have been led to believe that the Proposed Rosemont mine is a “done deal”. The public was not properly educated and did not understand the purpose of the scoping process. The Forest Service, nor the media made it clear that one option available to the forest service is a decision of “no action” meaning the mine would not be permitted nor allowed to use the forest service land as proposed. The initial media coverage of the proposal failed to mention this option but repeatedly included comments by Augusta representatives that would lead the public to believe that it is a “done deal” and the mine would be permitted. From an article in the Arizona Daily Star published 4/03/2008 "But Sturgess, of Rosemont Copper, said the mine is coming regardless of what happens with Grijalva's legislation." From an article in the Arizona Daily Star published 6/18/2008 quoting Gil Clausen CEO of Augusta "Clausen said the company plans to be in production by 2011". From Fox 11 news May 12 2008 after the Elgin forest service hearing, Fox 11's Delane Cleveland pretty much summed up how the public portrays this process. http://www.fox11az.com/video/newsvideo-index.html?nvid=244643 . thanks to Heather Moore for trying to present the truth. From an article in the Green Valley News published 5/24/2008 "Reps. Gabrielle Giffords and Raul Grijalva, both Democrats, sent a letter to Jeanine Derby, who heads the Coronado National Forest, with the request to restart the environmental studies dealing with a proposed copper mine east of Green Valley. The representatives argued that her announcement in the Federal Register March 13, 2008, said that the scoping process was “to grant permission to the company” to use National Forest Service land “for certain activities related to operation of the Rosemont mine. ”Giffords and Grijalva reminded her that one of the Forest Service options on the Rosemont request “is ‘no action’ ”They added, “We do not believe the Forest Service can adequately consider a ‘no action’ alternative if its stated purpose at the outset is to grant permission for the project.”" From an article in the Arizona Daily Star published 4/03/2008 Heidi Schewel said "The use of public lands for private mining is permitted by the Mining Act of 1872. In other words, the Forest Service is compelled to respond to the company's proposal based on mining laws, Schewel said. The federal land would be used mostly for the byproducts of the mining operation" How long does the EIS study take to create the EIS Draft? According to the Forest service 8 1/2 months? The Forest Service has indicated the Draft EIS will be completed by March of 2009 in their Memorandum of Understanding with Augusta (see attachment 2 EIS Timeline). How can they provide this estimate prior to the end of the scoping process? Is this a restricting date, or will it be extended as necessary to provide the time needed to research all of the publics comments and alternative proposals and complete the various studies that are necessary? I propose this should not be a set date, but must remain flexible. From an article in the Arizona Daily Star published 6/11/2008 "This process is a prelude to a formal environmental-impact statement, which in Rosemont's case is scheduled to start work on July 14. A draft statement is due to be released in March 2009." From an article in the Green Valley News published 5/6/2008 "Regional 3 Forest Service hydro geologist Roger Congdon is evaluating information submitted by Augusta’s consultants and will be handling all water information on Rosemont throughout the EIS process. Much of the information he is getting is “in the early stage” and centers around identifying sites for appropriate monitoring wells. Congdon said Myers “had data that is a bit limited; he used four monitoring wells in the pit area and did what he could with what he had.” He agreed with Myers that pumping the pit will lower the water table immediately around it over 2000 feet, adding, “Most of his presumptions are sound but we have a lot of uncertainties out there. We don’t know how ‘expansive’ the aquifer is. I worked on an EIS on the Battle Mountain, Nevada mine that was supposed to have a thousand years of water that was pumped out in a few years.” “Hopefully, over time, we’ll have hard data that can better answer those questions,” added Congdon who, like La Ford, stressed, “The EIS process can take a long time and we’re still early in the process. New information keeps coming in, like this idea to run a tunnel through the Santa Rita's.”" From an article in the Arizona Daily Star published 5/1/2008 "A draft environmental statement is due in March 2009. A final statement is due in November 2009." From an article in the Arizona Daily Star published 4/28/2008 "A draft environmental statement is due in March 2009. A final statement is due in November 2009." Who Opposes this mine? The Publics lack of understanding the NEPA process has been facilitated by statements made by both forest service representatives and Augusta representatives. Repeated comments would lead the public to believe that opposition of the mine is limited. For example an article in the Arizona daily star published 4/06/2008 about the Vail open house said the following about comments from Jamie Sturgess he is quoted "He bristled at the statement that nearly everyone at the forum was against the mine. That wasn't so, he said, and to prove his point he called over Karl Weiss, a Tucson resident, who said he supports the jobs. Weiss referred to the crowd as a mixture of "yuppies," "college kids" and "senior citizens" who have time to come to such a forum. Anyone working, and presumably supporting the mine, would be with their family, he said. He then acknowledged that he was biased for the mine because he works for the firm. "I do some work as a consultant for Rosemont," he said. "Obviously, I have a vested interest in seeing the mine go in”. Other articles have referred to the opposition as consisting of environmentalists, residents living near the site and the Pima County Board of Supervisors. Augusta representatives have repeatedly referenced a survey they performed of the Tucson area concerning approval of the mine. The survey showed 64% of the respondents were for the mine. Click here for the survey report including the promises made to encourage a favorable response. As you can see they were quite misled! From an article in the Associated Press published 4/30/2008 "Augusta Resource Corp. plans to begin producing copper, molybdenum, silver and gold from the site by 2011. The project still needs environmental approvals and faces opposition from environmentalists, residents living near the site and the Pima County Board of Supervisors." From an article in the Tucson Weekly published 4/03/2008 "Augusta's plan faces nearly unanimous opposition from local government leaders, and from citizens concerned about environmental impacts on the popular hiking and bird-watching area." Forest service open house meeting schedules and facilities The
open houses hosted by the forest service for the purpose of educating the
general public did not provide adequate facilities to organizations attempting
to educate the public about the negatives of this mine.
For example, at the Elgin and Vail open houses these organizations were
allowed to set up information booths but were not provided a comfortable
environment to discuss those concerns with the general public, extreme heat,
wind, and bright sun were the conditions we had to contend with.
The Sahaurita meeting was held at a facility that would not allow any
opponents to the mine to set up and provide information for the general public.
While I applaud the forest service decision to add three open mike
meetings to the agenda I question the selection of the chosen locations. Public anger at the Patagonia meeting concerning the
format of the open houses should certainly warrant an open mike meeting in that
community. The Vail community with
the most impact from the mine should be provided an open mike meeting as well.
Green Valley who is already greatly impacted by mining should also be
provided an open mike meeting. I
find it ironic that the three communities currently most threatened by mining
activities are not being provided the opportunity to voice their concerns at a
location within reasonable driving distance to their homes To start they scheduled 3 meetings back to back to provide the public with information, very few people seemed to even know the scoping process had started, much less what it meant! March 18 - Tucson - this is the meeting Rosemont recruited pro mine job applicants for March 19 - Green Valley - This meeting was described as very orderly March 20 - Patagonia - This meeting is when all hell broke loose, it initiated the scoping extension Next Gabrielle Giffords appealed to the Forest service for an extension and secured one. Read the AZ star article April 5 - Vail - Finally the community most impacted has an informational open house and what a turn out April 22 - Sahaurita informational open house April 23 - Elgin - informational open house once
again, I
find it ironic that the three communities currently most threatened by mining
activities are not being provided the opportunity to voice their concerns at a
location within reasonable driving distance to their homes May 29 - Elgin - open mike for commenting, over 300 attendees, most oppose the mine June 7 - Sahaurita - open mike for commenting, over 200 attendees, most oppose the mine June 29 - Forest service announces its new Phone line for public commenting with 15 days till the end of the scoping process June 30 - Tucson - Open mike meeting, over 350 attendees, many from Vail.
|
‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’ If you have information you would like to be included on this web page E-mail hiltonroad@msn.com Let us know if you would like to receive information from us
|