National Environmental Policy Act
Scoping Comments for the Proposed Rosemont Copper Project Environmental Impact
Statement
OVERVIEW: This scoping document contains comments on the Proposed
Rosemont Copper Project (hereinafter “Mine”) in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as
amended (P.L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, as amended by P.L.
94-52, July 3, 1975, P.L. 94-83, August 9, 1975, and P.L. 97-258, § 4(b), Sept.
13, 1982) (hereinafter “NEPA”).
The document is divided into two main sections: (I) Potential Impacts of the Mine and (II)
Alternatives to the Mine.
The Potential Impacts of the Mine section is organized into
eleven major topics: (1) water
resources, (2) pollution and safety, (3) scenic and recreational values, (4)
wildlife and wildlife habitats, (5) regional rural economy, (6) electric power,
(7) historic and cultural resources, (8) mine operator’s experience and
qualifications, (9) mine remediation, reclamation, and closure, (10) emergency
services, and (11) cooperating agencies.
There is a lead comment for each major topic.
Within each major topic there may be subtopics with a
narrowly focused comment for each. For
each major topic or subtopic there may also be recommendations for potential
measures for mitigation of adverse effects arising from plans or activities
proposed by Augusta Resource Corporation/Rosemont Copper Company, Inc.
(hereinafter “Augusta” or “Applicant”) in its Mine Plan of Operation
(hereinafter “MPO”). The Potential Impacts
of the Mine section closes with a Summary Statement.
The Alternatives to the Mine section sets forth a number of
alternatives to the proposed Mine that may eliminate or reduce the
environmental impacts of the proposed Mine.
For each alternative there may be identified a number of comments in the
Potential Impacts of the Mine section to which the alternative applies. Following the Alternatives to the Mine
section are References and Attachments.
I. Potential Impacts of the Mine
COMMENT 1: ADVERSE IMPACTS OF THE MINE ON THE REGION’S
FRAGILE WATERSHEDS AND INCREASINGLY STRESSED GROUNDWATER RESOURCES ARE CERTAIN,
ARE UNDERESTIMATED BY AUGUSTA, AND MUST BE FURTHER AND INDEPENDENTLY STUDIED TO
BE SUFFICIENTLY UNDERSTOOD AND AVOIDED OR FULLY MITIGATED. Independent hydrological studies estimate that the Mine
will intercept substantial
surface water that flows to the Davidson Canyon Wash. The same studies warn that dewatering of the Mine’s pit could
significantly lower the groundwater levels south and north of the Mine in the
region east of the Santa Rita Mountains.
The Mine’s water production wells near Sahuarita in the Santa Cruz basin
west of the Santa Rita Mountains will affect the basin’s ground water levels and
nearby existing wells.
There are substantial remaining uncertainties pertaining to water
runoff, recharge, evapotranspiration, and storage properties in the region east
of the Santa Rita Mountains. The
disruption of the water runoff and lowering of the local groundwater table by
the Mine further may threaten the surface water of the Cienega Creek,
classified by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a critical habitat for the
Gila Chub (Gila Intermedia) which is designated as endangered with critical
habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. There is also a potential for
the Cienega Creek to be polluted from the Mine operations during heavy
rains. Independent original studies must be undertaken to produce for the
Forest Service valid and reliable empirical data concerning the Mine’s impact
on the quantity and quality of regional surface water and groundwater
sufficient and necessary for developing the Environmental Impact Statement
(hereinafter “EIS”) and demonstrating compliance with the Regional National
Forest Policy on Groundwater.
COMMENT 1A:
THE EXTENT THAT THE MINE’S WASTE ROCK, TAILINGS, AND ACID LEACH FIELDS
DEPOSITED BEHIND CONTAINMENT BUTTRESSES
IN BARREL AND OTHER NEARBY CANYONS WILL DISRUPT SURFACE WATER CHANNELS
FLOWING INTO THE DAVIDSON CANYON WASH REMAINS UNDETERMINED.
Discussion: The Coronado National Forest Land and
Resource Management Plan states
the following:
“Much of the
water used in Southern Arizona and New Mexico originates on the mountain
Watersheds of the Coronado. Competition for available water is rapidly
increasing, and concern is growing about quantity, and quality. The issue can
be stated as follows:
1.
Management of forest resources to protect or enhance watershed condition from
both a hydrologic function and soil productivity standpoint.”
An independent hydrological study commissioned by
Pima County (see Attachment A which is incorporated herein by reference)
estimates that the Mine will intercept approximately 650 acre-feet per year of
water flow to the Davidson Canyon Wash which in turn flows to the
Cienega Creek—an important contributor to greater Tucson’s water supply. The amount that will be intercepted is
approximately the same as the current flow that reaches the lower Cienega Creek
from Davidson Canyon. The nearly 3,000 acres of
waste rock, tailings, and acid leach fields will forever alter the Davidson
Canyon Watershed and Cienega Creek.
Mitigation:
·
Explicit Performance Standards must be established and
continuously monitored by an independent entity at the ongoing expense of
Augusta to ensure that the existing water quantity and quality is met during
and following reclamation and closure.
Such monitoring shall continue indefinitely until an independent entity
can scientifically confirm that no long-term adverse effects exist.
·
The proposed “Central Drain” does not address the adverse
impacts of “upstream” surface runoff containing toxic materials entering the
Davidson Canyon Watershed, Cienega Creek, and Pantano Creek. Mitigation of such
adverse impacts must be provided and conclusively demonstrated via stringent
performance standards and on-going monitoring (see above). A National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit will be required under the federal Clean
Water Act (CWA). This will apply to
liquid waste applied to land or released into waters of the nation, and to
runoff from the site. In fact a permit
would be required to re-inject the waste water into the groundwater basin.
COMMENT 1B:
THE EXTENT THAT DEWATERING OF THE MINE’S PIT WILL ALTER THE LOCATIONS,
LEVELS, AND/OR QUALITY OF GROUNDWATER IN THE REGION REMAINS UNDETERMINED.
Discussion: The
Mine’s open pit, which may be as deep as 2,900 feet, will likely invade the
ground water resources on the east side of the Santa Rita Mountains. Dewatering of the pit through pumping could
dry up or significantly lower the water levels in the many existing residential
and other wells in the region east of the Santa Rita Mountains. A hydrological study commissioned by Pima
County (see Attachment B which is incorporated herein by reference) estimates
that dewatering of the Mine’s pit could lower the regional ground water table
by as much as 2,000 feet. Drilling at a
cost of $30 per foot to increase the depth of these existing wells to reach a
significantly lowered water level will place an unjustifiable financial burden
on their owners. Furthermore, Augusta’s
proposed recharging of the Santa Cruz basin (see COMMENT 1C) will not benefit
the depleted ground water resources east of the Santa Rita Mountains.
Mitigation:
As a condition of
Forest Service approval of Augusta’s MPO, Augusta and any successors in
ownership of the Mine must be required to enter into a well protection
agreement with the owner(s) of each existing well that could be adversely
affected by the Mine. Moreover, as a
condition of Forest Service approval of Augusta’s MPO, Augusta and any
successors in ownership of the Mine must be required to agree in writing to pay
all expenses necessary to restore fresh water service to all affected homes and
businesses in the event the Mine pollutes the groundwater in the region east of
the Santa Rita Mountains.
COMMENT
1C: THE ADVERSE IMPACT OF THE
MINE’S PRODUCTION WATER WELLS ON REGIONAL GROUND WATER RESOURCES ARE
UNSUSTAINABLE GIVEN ANTICIPATED POPULATION GROWTH IN PIMA AND SANTA CRUZ
COUNTIES AND INCREASINGLY STRESSED WATER RESOURCES.
Discussion:
Augusta plans to develop six high-volume production water wells in the
Santa Cruz basin to the west of the Mine—also an important contributor to
greater Tucson’s water supply—with a combined pumping rate of up to 9,000
gallons of ground water per minute.
Despite a declaration in the MPO that the Mine will require 5,000
acre-feet of ground water per year, Augusta applied for and the Arizona
Department of Water Resources (ADWR) issued Augusta a withdrawal permit for
6,000 acre-feet of ground water per year or 114,000 acre-feet over the 19-year
lifetime of the Mine. According to ADWR
calculations, 6,000 acre-feet of water is sufficient to meet the residential
needs of 30,000 people for one year—equivalent to the population of Marana,
Arizona. In total, after 19 years, the
Mine will have pumped a minimum of 40-billion gallons of ground water from the
Santa Cruz basin. Depletion of regional
ground water on this scale will not be sustainable.
According to the ADWR, about 40 percent of
the state's water use comes from groundwater sources. For over a hundred years,
Arizona’s groundwater has been pumped out more rapidly than it has been
replenished. This is especially true in
Pima County. By continuing to overdraft
the state's groundwater supplies, the state’s ability to ensure a secure water
supply for the future is at risk.
Despite an already stressed ground water supply and significant
anticipated population growth in Pima and Santa Cruz counties, Augusta will
have no legally enforceable obligation to replace, as it proposes, the ground
water that it uses with water deliveries from the Central Arizona Project
(CAP). Also, the recharge facility near
the current terminus of CAP cannot, as Augusta proposes, replace the ground
water lost to the Mine’s production wells far to the east. And, even if it could, 6,000 acre-feet per
year represents 25 percent of the recharge facility’s maximum net recharge
capacity. Lastly, the ground water that
Augusta will remove for use at the Mine is of very high quality, while the CAP
water that Augusta proposes as a replacement for groundwater lost to the Mine
is of very low quality. This is a bad
trade for the people who will be drinking the replacement water.
There is a growing number of increasingly competing municipal,
tribal, and commercial interests vying for diminishing CAP water
resources. Long-range forecasts are
predicting continuing drought conditions and decreasing rainfall and snowmelt
runoff in the upper Colorado River watersheds.
When mandated Colorado River water allocations to California, Nevada,
and pre-CAP Arizona cannot be met, Colorado River water diverted to CAP will be
reduced under Federal law. Augusta,
consequently, cannot guarantee that sufficient CAP water will be available to
replace the ground water that it uses.
According to the MPO, Augusta does not plan to develop high-volume
production water wells east of the Santa Rita Mountains. If such production wells were to be
developed, however, they would have an adverse impact on existing residential
and other wells nearby. Protection of Arizona’s diminishing high quality water
resources must be given priority over protection of hard rock mining interests
in Arizona.
Mitigation:
·
Augusta’s proposed mitigation through groundwater recharge
is flawed due to the unreliability of water sources for such recharge. Chronic
drought conditions in the arid Southwest in combination with the projected
population growth of the Phoenix/Tucson region severely reduce the long-term
unreliability of CAP water. This
situation is exacerbated by the legal limitations of CAP’s Junior Water Rights.
·
As a condition of Forest Service approval of Augusta’s MPO,
Augusta and any successors in ownership of the Mine must be required to agree
in writing that it will voluntarily replace the ground water that the Mine uses
or reduce the amount of ground water that the Mine uses to amounts that can be
replaced by Augusta.
·
As a condition of Forest Service approval of Augusta’s MPO,
Augusta and any successors in ownership of the Mine must be required to enter
into a well protection agreement with the owner(s) of each existing well that
could be adversely affected by the Mine’s production wells wherever they may
be.
·
As a condition of Forest Service approval of Augusta’s MPO,
Augusta and any successors in ownership of the Mine must agree in writing that
should CAP allocations be reduced, the Mine’s reduction in CAP water will not
be replaced at the expense of the citizens of greater Tucson, Green Valley,
Sahuarita, or rural Pima County east of the Santa Rita Mountains, even if that
will require slowing or stopping activity at the Mine.
COMMENT 2: AIR, NOISE, TRAFFIC, AND LIGHT POLLUTION BY
THE MINE ARE CERTAIN. SOIL AND WATER
POLLUTION BY THE MINE ARE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT DURING THE LIFETIME OF THE MINE
AND FOR AN UNKNOWN NUMBER OF DECADES AFTER CLOSURE OF THE MINE. THESE ADVERSE EFFECTS ARE
UNDERESTIMATED BY AUGUSTA AND MUST BE FURTHER AND INDEPENDENTLY STUDIED TO BE
SUFFICIENTLY UNDERSTOOD AND AVOIDED OR FULLY MITIGATED. Of the ten Arizona facilities releasing the most
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) chemicals to the air, soil, and water in 2002 as
reported in 2004 by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), seven were
mining facilities (see Reference 1). TRI chemicals are defined by the EPA as
being reasonably anticipated to cause acute or chronic adverse human health
effects or adverse environmental effects.
Of the 324-million total pounds of TRI chemicals released by these
top-ten polluting facilities to the Arizona environment that year, 318-million
pounds were released by mining facilities—an astounding 98 percent of that
total.
Blasting will cause severe noise pollution in rural Pima County’s historically
quiet environment. Nearly 100 heavy
trucks and over 60 employee pool vans arriving at and departing from the Mine
per day will cause severe and dangerous traffic congestion on normally
uncongested Arizona Scenic Highway 83.
Tons of dust released into the atmosphere by blasting at the Mine
combined with Mine operations 24 hours per day, seven days per week, for 19
years will cause severe light pollution in traditionally astronomy-friendly
Pima and Santa Cruz Counties.
These are unacceptable risks under any
circumstance, but all the more so given the rural values and unspoiled
environment in the region. When any
pollutant released by the Mine rises to a level exceeding Federal Environmental
Protection Agency standards or the standards of any other governmental agency
with jurisdiction, the Mine operator must be penalized and required to comply
in accordance with all applicable law(s).
And, in the event of failure to comply, the Mine must be compelled to
cease operations and pay all expenses for environmental pollution remediation,
land reclamation, and mine closure.
COMMENT 2A:
SOIL AND WATER POLLUTION ARE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT AND ARE THE MOST
PERSISTENT AND EXPENSIVE TO REMEDY.
Discussion: The Mine’s
potentially discharging facilities include:
several ponds, leach
pad, tailing fields, waste rock fields, open pit, concentrator, SX/EW
operations, and
other process and maintenance facilities.
In addition, very large quantities of toxic chemicals are being
delivered to and stored at the Mine including the following:
·
Concentrated
sulfuric acid (93%) will be delivered to the Mine in tank trucks with a
capacity of about 24 tons nine times per day with an annual requirement of
about 73,190 tons. The concentrated
sulfuric acid will be stored in tanks at the Mine.
·
Diesel fuel will
be delivered to the Mine in tank trucks with a capacity of about 6,000 gallons
four times per day with an annual requirement of nine-million gallons. The diesel fuel will be stored in tanks at
the Mine.
·
Other fuels and
oils will be delivered to the Mine in trucks once a week with an annual
requirement of 105,000 gallons. These
other fuels and oils will be stored in tanks at the Mine.
·
Miscellaneous
reagents will be delivered to the Mine in trucks once a day with an annual requirement
of 3,750 tons. These miscellaneous
reagents will be stored at the Mine.
Despite being
constructed to standards acceptable in the mining industry, such facilities and
storage systems can and do fail due to deterioration, mechanical failure, negligence,
accidents, human error, and unanticipated events. Moreover, all of the many daily truck deliveries of toxic
materials to the Mine place the environment at risk due to collisions on the
road or at the Mine, and to off-loading accidents at the Mine.
In a
major case-study research report – “Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water
Quality at Hardrock Mines: The Reliability of Predictions in Environmental
Impact Statements” – Kuipers & Associates concluded that there are
chronic underestimates of water quality problems in Environmental Impact
Statements on hardrock mines. For example, of the 25 mines sampled
·
76% polluted groundwater or surface water severely enough
to exceed water quality standards;
·
77% of those which exceeded surface water quality standards,
did so despite predicting that mitigation would result in compliance;
·
73% of those which exceeded groundwater quality standards,
did so despite predicting that mitigation would result in compliance;
·
93% of the mines near groundwater with elevated potential
for acid drainage or contaminant leaching, exceeded water quality standards; of
those mines that did develop acid drainages, 89% predicted that they would not;
·
Of the mines that exceeded water quality standards, toxic
heavy metals such as lead, mercury, cadmium, copper, nickel or zinc exceeded
standards at 63% of mines.
This
study underscores the urgent need not only to prepare MPOs which go beyond
current industry standards, but also to require that mitigation measures be
subjected to greater scientific rigor; that predictions of impacts be based in
part on performance in past predictions and experiences at other mines; changes
in procedures for selecting consultants to avoid the present conflict of
interests present in the industry; and increased government expertise to ensure
that staff has the technical expertise to provide analysis and oversight of the
mine permitting process.
The Mine’s waste
rock, tailings, and acid leach field containment buttresses are being
engineered to survive, and its surface water management facilities are being
engineered to handle, runoff water generated by a 100-year, 24-hour storm
event. Should, however, a 100-year,
48-hour storm event, or a 500-year, 24-hour storm event, or a 1,000-year,
24-hour storm event occur, the Mine would suffer catastrophic destruction
moving the waste rock, the tailing, and the acid leach field materials miles
downstream, and with them all of the toxic materials being stored at the
mine. The resulting soil and water
pollution would be on an immense scale.
Despite being
constructed to standards acceptable in the mining industry, such containment
buttresses and surface water management facilities can and do fail due to
unanticipated events. And, when toxic
chemical releases do occur, the most persistent and expensive to remedy are
those impacting soil and water. The
Mine’s containment and water management facilities must be engineered to a
higher standard.
Mitigation:
·
In the event of failure to comply with all applicable water
quality standards, Augusta must be compelled to cease operations and pay all
expenses for remediation.
·
Require
that mitigation measures be subjected to greater scientific rigor; that
predictions of impacts be based in part on performance in past predictions and
experiences at other mines;
·
Require
that mitigation measures be designed by persons with the requisite technical
expertise and experience, and that all proposed mitigation measures be
subjected to independent review and determination of the risk of failure and
the likelihood of success.
·
All
mitigation measures should be subjected to a “worst plausible case scenario” so
that the adverse effects of plausible worst-case scenarios are explicitly
studied and considered. For example,
when the very safety of the domestic water supply for the City of Tucson could
be at risk, it is not unreasonable to require the determination of the probably
adverse impacts of a 200-year flood event on the proposed project.
COMMENT 2B:
THE MINE WILL RELEASE TO THE AIR UNACCEPTABLE AMOUNTS OF DUST,
HYDROCARBONS, AND OTHER TOXIC CHEMICALS.
Discussion: Augusta plans to blast and
dig a mine pit that will be 6,500 feet long, 6,000 feet wide, and as much as
2,900 feet deep. Blasting will be done
by exploding 20,000 tons of ammonium nitrate per year or 380-thousand tons over
the Mine’s lifetime. Such blasting and
digging will release tons of dust into the atmosphere.
Augusta plans to remove from the Mine’s pit some 600-million tons
of below-average-grade copper-bearing ore and up to 1.9-billion tons of waste
rock over the Mine’s lifetime.
513-million tons of ore will be milled on-site yielding over 500-million
tons of tailing materials. The waste
rock and tailing materials will be transported by haul trucks for permanent
on-site storage in Barrel and other local canyons covering nearly 3,000
acres. The combined effects on these
waste materials of exposure to strong sun light, extremely low relative
humidity, and persistently moderate winds in the Rosemont area over a majority
of months per year, will release tons of dust into the region’s atmosphere.
Digging and hauling will be done 24 hours a day, seven days a
week, by heavy machinery burning and converting to tail-pipe emissions
9-million gallons of diesel fuel per year or 171-million gallons over the
Mine’s lifetime. In addition to this,
the 150 trucks and employee pool vans arriving at and departing the Mine daily
will further increase the hydrocarbon emissions attributable to the Mine’s operation.
Mitigation:
·
In the event of failure to comply with all applicable air quality
standards, August must be compelled to cease operations and pay all expenses
for remediation.
·
Require
that mitigation measures be subjected to greater scientific rigor; that
predictions of impacts be based in part on performance in past predictions and
experiences at other mines;
·
Require
that mitigation measures be designed by persons with the requisite technical
expertise and experience, and that all proposed mitigation measures be
subjected to independent review and determination of the risk of failure and
the likelihood of success.
COMMENT 2C: BLASTING AT THE MINE WILL CAUSE UNACCEPTABLE
NOISE LEVELS AND GENERATE POWERFUL SHOCK WAVES IN THE AIR AND GROUND.
Discussion: Unacceptable noise levels
will adversely impact the lives, lifestyles, and livelihoods of nearby
residents and businesses. Such noise
levels will disrupt the reproductive cycles of resident and migrating species
of insects, arachnids, fish, birds, and mammals. Such noise levels will adversely impact the enjoyment of the
National Forest by its many thousands of visitors annually.
Powerful shockwaves traveling through the ground and air,
generated by blasting at the Mine, will shake homes and rattle doors and
windows up to six miles away, and possibly damage nearby residential,
historical, and other structures. The
Empire Ranch Foundation commissioned a seismic/structural engineering study of possible impacts of
blasting at the Mine on four adobe buildings at the Empire Ranch Headquarters in
the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area that are listed on the National
Register of Historic Places (see Attachment C which is incorporated herein by
reference). The study concluded in part
that at a distance of five miles from the Mine:
“steady ground disturbance from blasting, similar to small
earthquakes, would most likely precipitate the deterioration of the mortar
between the adobe blocks. This loss of
mortar has two effects. The first is
the increased maintenance of the buildings through more frequent repointing of
the adobe. Further there is a
continuing cycling probable, almost a rocking of the block due to ground
motion. While the amplitudes are small
the continued vibration will have a deleterious effect on the adobe wall.”
Adverse effects
of blasting at the Mine on nearby residential, historical, and other structures
are underestimated by Augusta and must be further and independently
studied to be sufficiently understood.
Blasting must not be undertaken at the Mine unless independent studies
prove that damage due to blasting at the Mine to residential, historical, and
other structures will not occur.
Mitigation:
As a condition of Forest Service approval of Augusta’s MPO,
Augusta and any successors in ownership of the
Mine must be required to
agree in writing to pay for all repairs to residential, historical, or other
structures in the event damage due to blasting at the Mine should occur.
COMMENT 2D: THE MINE WILL SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE
DANGEROUS HEAVY TRUCK TRAFFIC AND CONGESTION ON ARIZONA SCENIC HIGHWAY 83.
Discussion: Augusta plans to
transport all materials, supplies, equipment, parts, and employees to the Mine
and all production output, employees, and waste from the Mine via Arizona
Scenic Highway 83, a narrow, winding, two-lane road. On average, there will be 150 vehicles arriving at the Mine and
150 vehicles departing the Mine per day, the majority of which will be heavy
trucks. There will be:
·
47 employee pool vans arriving at and 15 employee pool vans
leaving from the Mine for the morning shift change, and there will be 15
employee pool vans arriving at and 47 employee pool vans leaving from the Mine
for the evening shift change every day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, for
19 years.
·
56 tractor-trailers with 24-ton loads of copper concentrates
leaving the Mine and 56 empty concentrate tractor-trailers returning to the
Mine every day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, for 19 years.
·
nine tanker trucks delivering sulfuric acid to the Mine and nine
empty acid tanker trucks leaving the Mine per day.
·
five trucks delivering pebble lime to the Mine and five empty
pebble lime trucks leaving the Mine per day.
·
four trucks delivering mill balls to the Mine and four empty mill
ball trucks leaving the Mine per day.
·
four tanker trucks delivering diesel fuel to the Mine and four
empty diesel fuel tanker trucks leaving the Mine per day.
·
four trucks hauling copper cathodes leaving the Mine and four
empty cathode trucks returning to the Mine per day.
·
four trucks delivering explosive ammonium nitrate to the Mine and
four empty ammonium nitrate trucks leaving the Mine per day.
·
one truck delivering miscellaneous reagents to the Mine and one
empty reagent truck leaving the Mine per day.
·
one truck delivering parts and explosives to the Mine and one
empty parts and explosives truck leaving the Mine per day.
The U. S. Interstate-10 Marsh Station
railroad bridge must be modified to permit passage of oversized loads on
Interstate-10 which are currently being rerouted to SR83. This will eliminate oversized loads on SR83
and avoid a compounding of dangerous traffic congestion involving both
oversized loads and heavy truck traffic arriving at and departing the Mine. Passing lanes must be added on SR83 to allow
normal traffic to safely pass the hundreds of slower-moving trucks daily. Owing to a significantly increased volume of
heavy-vehicle traffic on SR83, which was not engineered for such a volume of
such heavy vehicles, road maintenance will be required much more
frequently. Moreover,
the Portland Cement mine if approved in the Empire Mountains will also be
sending heavy trucks onto SR83—the effects of the Mine’s heavy-vehicle traffic
and the cement mine’s heavy-vehicle traffic on the safety of SR83 must be considered cumulatively.
Augusta
underestimates the adverse impact the Mine will have on local traffic. Arizona Scenic Highway 83—the primary route
for school buses, tourists, commuters, and service providers between greater
Tucson and the Elgin-Sonoita-Patagonia area—choked with dangerous heavy mine
traffic, will no longer be scenic or safe.
Further and independent studies must be conducted to determine the
expected change in road maintenance costs and the expected change in traffic
accident, injury, and death rates on Arizona Scenic Highway 83 due to increased
traffic congestion from the Mine.
Within
the next 20-year period it is highly likely that the Federal Government and the
State of Arizona will adopt significantly higher mileage requirements for all
forms of motor vehicles in light of energy supplies and costs along with
climate change considerations. These
requirements will clearly affect the proposed project, and the traffic,
circulation, energy, and economic impact sections of the Draft EIS should
address the implications of these considerations on the operation of the
proposed project.
Mitigation:
·
A large number of traffic mitigation measures exist,
including, but not limited to the following list of “illustrative” measures;
note that these measures should be provided by Augusta, and should not involve
public monies::
o
Improve the interchange at Highway 83 and U. S. Interstate
10 to accommodate the levels and types of equipment necessary to sustain the
proposed project over its anticipated lifetime; such measures must first and
foremost address considerations of public safety;
o
Improve the interchange at Kolb Road (access point to the
Port of Tucson) and U. S. Interstate-10 to accommodate the levels and types of
equipment necessary to sustain the proposed project over its anticipated
lifetime; such measures must first and foremost address considerations of
public safety;
o
Improve the intersections at all roads serving residential
properties along SR83 to accommodate the levels and types of equipment
necessary to sustain the proposed project over its anticipated lifetime; such
measures must first and foremost address considerations of public safety;
o
Provide additional driving lanes on Highway 83 between
mile-marker 44 and U. S. Interstate 10;
o
Require car pooling for employees;
o
Establish split-shifts to reduce peak-hour traffic;
o
Suspend travel operations during the morning and evening
commute periods and during travel times for all school busses.
COMMENT 2E: THE MINE WILL SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE LIGHT
POLLUTION IN A REGION THAT IS HOME TO NUMEROUS FEDERALLY AND PRIVATELY FUNDED
WORLD-CLASS ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATORIES.
Discussion: Rural Pima and Santa Cruz
Counties are highly valued by the amateur and professional astronomy
communities for their dark, transparent, and tranquil night skies. Included among the world-class astronomical
facilities in Pima and Santa Cruz Counties are the Kitt Peak National
Observatory and the Fred Lawrence Whipple Observatory. Also a world-class astronomical facility
potentially affected by light pollution from the Mine is the Mount Graham
International Observatory located in Greenlee County. All three facilities were created with substantial Federal
assistance and receive ongoing research support from a number of Federal
agencies with hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars.
The tons of dust released into the atmosphere by blasting at the
Mine (see COMMENT 2B) combined with
the Mine’s proposed 24-hours per day, seven days per week operating schedule
with the Mine being fully illuminated during the night shift will severely
compromise the region’s prized dark night skies. This will place the investment of hundreds of millions of
taxpayers’ and private contributors’ dollars at risk. Dan Brocius from the Fred Lawrence Whipple Observatory states:
“Outdoor light pollution threatens the astronomy industry in
Arizona which has an infrastructure worth about $250-million.”
Every major Federally funded and privately funded astronomical
observatory, and every Federal Agency having funded or which is currently
funding a major astronomical observatory potentially affected by the Mine must
be consulted.
Mitigation:
As a condition of
Forest Service approval of Augusta’s MPO, Augusta and any successors in
ownership of the Mine must be required to agree in writing that, although
exempt from the Pima County Outdoor Lighting Code, the Mine will voluntarily
comply with the code or stop night mining operations.
COMMENT 3: DESTRUCTION OF THE REGION’S FRAGILE SCENIC BEAUTY AND RECREATIONAL VALUE BY THE MINE IS CERTAIN. THESE ADVERSE REGIONAL EFFECTS ARE UNDERESTIMATED BY AUGUSTA AND MUST BE FURTHER AND INDEPENDENTLY STUDIED TO BE SUFFICIENTLY UNDERSTOOD AND AVOIDED OR FULLY MITIGATED. The Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan states the following:
“As local and tourist populations increase in the
Coronado's zone of influence, the demand for outdoor recreation on the National
Forest can be expected to continue to exceed the ability of the Forest Service
to provide needed services. Several issues are generated by this situation as
follows:
1. Identification of potential overuse areas and
establishment of carrying capacities (number of people who can use an area
without damage to natural resources).
2. Regulation of Off-Road Vehicle use to protect
other Forest resources and uses, while continuing to provide this much demanded
recreational opportunity.
3. Use of land for recreational development and
dispersed uses, and establishment of equitable fees for recreational use.
4. The role of the private sector in providing
recreation services on and adjacent to the National Forest must be reassessed.
5. Inventory and management planning for the
Coronado's many caves, and location of this resource to recreational,
scientific, and wilderness uses.
6. Visual resource integrity in all land management
decisions.”
Augusta plans to destroy 4,415 acres of
steadily vanishing unspoiled wilderness valued for its scenic beauty and
recreational opportunities. Arizona
Scenic Highway 83 follows the eastern edge of the Santa Rita Mountains near
Rosemont, a major reason for its designation as a Scenic Highway. The presence of the proposed open pit copper
mine will forever scar the inspiring views from this scenic drive and from the
many public Forest Service roads surrounding the Mine, and compromise the
region’s recreational value.
COMMENT 3A:
THE PRESENCE OF A LARGE OPEN PIT COPPER MINE AT ROSEMONT IN THE SANTA
RITA MOUNTAINS WILL ADVERSELY IMPACT THE SCENIC VALUES OF THE CORONADO NATIONAL
FOREST.
Discussion: The Mine’s plant site
will occupy 280 acres; access roads and the utility corridor will account for
285 acres; the Mine pit and its immediate perimeter will permanently occupy 950
acres; and the waste rock, tailing, and leach fields will permanently occupy
2,895 acres. Augusta plans to hide from
view the Mine’s ugly plant site, part of the ugly open pit, and all of the ugly
waste rock, tailings, and leach fields behind massive perimeter buttresses
which are, themselves, constructed from ugly waste rock. A view of the ugly plant site, the ugly open
pit, and nearly 3,000 acres of ugly waste rock, tailing, and leach fields will
be partially obstructed by a view of an ugly multi-story perimeter wall which
is, itself, constructed from ugly waste rock.
This cannot be considered an acceptable plan for protecting
irreplaceable scenic values in the Coronado National Forest.
The visual analyses
set forth in the MPO/Reclamation and Closure Plan understandably focus on the
visibility of the proposed project, particularly the mine operation structures,
from Scenic Highway 83. However, given
the location, extent and geometry of the pit, excavation of the higher
elevations of the eastern slopes of the Santa Rita Ridge, particularly on
Weigles Butte (one of the most dominant peaks in the range) will expose an
extensive area of barren rock which will be highly visible for miles on both
public and private land. As such, the
extent of the visual analyses must be expanded significantly to address this
issue.
Moreover, the visual
representations shown in the Augusta document(s) are oversimplified and
misleading. There is no evidence that
the proposed buttresses can achieve the smoothly contoured and re-vegetated
surfaces depicted in the various graphics.
Actual photo-simulations should be used in order to accurately
illustrate the contrasts in form, color, and texture which are characteristic
of all mine reclamations of this scale. The Forest Service should identify,
reference, and make public an existing exemplar mine reclamation plan which
meets its scenic management system standards as well as showing photographs of
this standard. It will then be
incumbent on the EIS team to conduct the requisite analyses and evaluations of
the likely visual impacts of the proposed project.
Mitigation:
The Forest Service has been a leader in the formulation of
methods and management systems to protect visual and scenic resources. There is a substantial body of Forest
Service policy and regulations, as well as handbooks and related materials that
should be applied to their fullest in the mitigation of visual impacts of the
proposed project. As such, the
following material is illustrative, and not exhaustive with respect to such
materials:
It is Forest Service policy (2380.3.3) to “Ensure
scenery is treated equally with other resources” and to “Apply scenery
management principles routinely in all National Forest System activities”.
Moreover, FSM 2300 -
Recreation, Wilderness, and Related Resource Management – Chapter 2380.15.2 – Landscape Management: Minerals Management states: “The rules at Title 36 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 228, Subpart A, Locatable Minerals (36 CFR
part 228, subpart A), include requirements for harmonizing mineral operations
with scenic values (sec. 228.8), and protecting scenic values when approving
access to those operations (sec. 228.12)”.
·
Managing
scenery on National Forest System lands entails:
1. Completing and
maintaining an inventory of landscape aesthetics and scenery resources.
2. Establishing goals and
objectives for the management of scenery on all National Forest System lands.
3. Applying the principles
of scenery management and environmental design in project-level planning.
4. Measuring scenery
management accomplishments and success of mitigation measures in meeting scenic
integrity objectives.
5. Monitoring and
documenting changes in scenery and changes in public expectations related to
landscape aesthetics and scenery.
·
“The
scenery management system, as set out in the Department of Agriculture’s
National Forest Landscape Management Series (FSM 2380.6), consists of the
following:
1. The basic concepts, elements, principles, and variables of
environmental art and design.
2. Landscape character, existing scenic integrity, and scenic
classes.
3. Constituent information including, but not limited to, users,
public expectations, sense of place, viewsheds, and viewpoints.
4. Landscape character goals and scenic integrity objectives
integrated with other resource, cultural, and administrative needs.”
·
“Refer
to the Agriculture Handbook series on Landscape Management (FSM 2380.61) as
guidance in project-level work to:
1. Plan, design, and
construct utilities to reduce negative impacts to scenery associated with the
utilities.
2. Analyze the impact of
range management activities and determine methods to reduce negative impacts to
associated scenery.
3. Integrate roads into
the landscape with minimum adverse impact to scenery.
4. Determine how various
silvicultural and landscape design treatments can be used to meet scenic
integrity objectives and landscape character goals.
…
8. Determine how scenery
management techniques and principles can be used to mitigate any land altering
activity or introduced elements on the land, to achieve and maintain desired
scenic integrity objectives and landscape character goals.”
COMMENT 3B:
THE PRESENCE OF A LARGE OPEN PIT COPPER MINE AT ROSEMONT IN THE SANTA
RITA MOUNTAINS WILL ADVERSELY IMPACT THE REGIONAL RECREATIONAL VALUES OF THE
CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST.
Discussion: The Mine’s physical
footprint of 4,415 acres, secured behind perimeter fences, will no longer be
accessible for recreational enjoyment by thousands of hikers, picnickers,
campers, bicyclists, motorcyclists, quad riders, off-road drivers, hunters,
photographers, amateur astronomers, rock hounds, birders, other animal
watchers, and other naturalists. An
even larger area, although accessible, will no longer be valued by the
thousands of visitors whose recreational enjoyment of the Coronado National
Forest will be adversely impacted by the Mine’s ugly appearance (see COMMENT
3A).
Mitigation:
The northern Santa Rita Mountains are strategically situated in
that portion of the Coronado National Forest located within the greater Tucson
metropolitan region. The region is
rapidly urbanizing, with a concurrent increase in demand for outdoor recreation
at the same time the amount of open space land available for recreation is
shrinking proportionally. As a result,
there is unrelenting and rapidly increasing pressure to maintain existing
recreational lands accessible to this growing population. The Rosemont Valley is an essential feature
in this regional recreation pattern, thus there should be no preemption of
recreational resources, and any impacts on recreational resources should be
fully mitigated.
There is a large body of Forest Service policy and regulation
related to visitation and recreation on the public lands under the agency’s
jurisdiction. It is therefore
imperative that all applicable policies, regulations, procedures, programs and
other guidelines be fully applied in the formulation of mitigation measures
which can eliminate or substantially reduce the adverse impacts on recreation
resulting from the proposed project.
COMMENT 4: DESTRUCTION OF IRREPLACEABLE AND INVALUABLE WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT BY THE MINE IS CERTAIN. THESE ADVERSE REGIONAL EFFECTS ARE UNDERESTIMATED BY AUGUSTA AND MUST BE FURTHER AND INDEPENDENTLY STUDIED TO BE SUFFICIENTLY UNDERSTOOD AND AVOIDED OR FULLY MITIGATED. The Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan states the following:
“The diversity of plants and animals found on the
Coronado is unique in the National Forest.
This uniqueness, coupled with a great deal of local and national
interest in this resource, generates a complex management opportunity. Five
issues involving wildlife management follow:
1 The amount of time and resources to be given
between threatened, endangered, or unique species; and other flora and fauna.
2. Critical wildlife habitat must be identified,
along with needed controls on other uses (mineral extraction, recreation,
etc.).
3. Appropriateness of predator and rodent control,
when and where.
4. Fishing lakes which will be maintained, and
consideration of any new construction.
5. Maintenance and improvement of the wildlife habitat for future
generations in conjunction with other Forest activities.”
Augusta plans to destroy a total of 4,415 acres of irreplaceable wildlife habitat for special-status, rare, and endangered plant and animal species. The Mine will significantly and detrimentally impact some of the most biologically important areas and wildlife habitat in Pima County as identified in the County’s Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. The project area occurs entirely within the County’s Conservation Lands System, including the specific designations of Important Riparian Area, Biological Core Management Area, and Multiple Use Management Area. As well, this land contains “Special Elements” that Pima County has committed to conserve: springs, limestone outcrops, intermittent streams, oak/grass ecotone, mesquite, and un-incised floodplain.
Operation of the Mine will disrupt species reproduction within and beyond the Mine’s physical footprint, and block established animal migration routes within a declared major bio-diversity corridor. The Rosemont area is part of or adjacent to three potential wildlife linkage zones identified in the Arizona Wildlife Linkages Assessment, completed by the Arizona Game and Fish Department and Arizona Department of Transportation in 2007. These wildlife linkage zones are defined by the Assessment as being “important to Arizona’s wildlife and natural ecosystems.” One of these zones was determined to be a “high priority” linkage zone, meaning it has both high biological value and high threat and opportunity value. In addition, one of the six “Critical Landscape Linkages” identified in Pima County’s Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan lies just north of the project area across U. S. Interstate-10 and south into Cienega Creek.
Special-status species with habitat occurring on
the proposed mine site include three of the ESA-listed species known to occur
in Pima County: the Huachuca water
umbel, Chiricahua leopard frog, and lesser long-nosed bat. The Rosemont area is habitat for the Arizona
shrew, Swainson’s hawk, Mexican long-tailed bat, pale Townsend’s bat, and Pima
pineapple cactus.
Evidence of nectar-feeding bats and the Mexican long-tongued bat was
found on the proposed mine site. Plant
species designated sensitive by the Forest Service found or likely to be found
on the proposed mine site include the Arizona giant sedge, Bartram stonecrop,
Box Canyon muhly, and weeping muhly.
Also occurring in Pima County and listed as
sensitive by the Forest Service is the yellow-billed cuckoo. Six other species listed by the Forest
Service as sensitive are considered possibly or probably present on the
site: the Arizona giant skipper,
Poling’s giant skipper, Arizona metalmark, western barking frog, canyon spotted
whiptail lizard, and American peregrine falcon. There are five other priority vulnerable species or wildlife of
special concern known to occur in the Rosemont area according to the Arizona
Game and Fish Department: the western
red bat, lowland leopard frog, giant spotted whiptail lizard, rufous-winged
sparrow, and Bell’s vireo. The Mexican
spotted owl and jaguar are known to have occurred there as well.
Augusta
underestimates the number of rare and endangered species of plants and animals
present at or frequenting the proposed mine site, and overestimates the ability
of its plan to protect such wildlife and such wildlife’s habitat. It is imperative that impacts of the
Mine on all plant and animal species be considered, especially those classified
as endangered/threatened (Federal), a species of concern (State), or vulnerable
(Pima County). The presence of species listed under the Endangered Species Act will
require the preparation of a Biological Assessment and then a Biological
Opinion (BO) by the listing agency (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Until these are available, it is not possible
to design the form or extent of the mitigation needed. Thus the scoping report should note the
requirement, and list the BO requirements in the final environmental
assessment.
COMMENT 4A:
THE MINE’S SULFURIC ACID SOLUTION LEACH PAD/COLLECTION PONDS AND THE
PROCESS WATER TEMPORARY STORAGE POND POSE DEADLY THREATS TO WILDLIFE.
Discussion: Two
facilities of the Mine pose direct and immediate threats to wildlife: the sulfuric acid solution leach
pad/collection ponds and the process water temporary storage pond. Sulfuric acid solution fumes are caustic and
if inhaled will damage respiratory organs and potentially cause death. Sulfuric acid solution is caustic and if contacted
will burn skin, eyes, and nasal and throat passages, and if swallowed will
damage digestive organs and potentially cause death.
Industrial process water and wastewater ponds that contain acids, oils, salts,
or other toxic chemicals are dangerous to all wildlife, but are particularly
dangerous to birds. Birds landing in
these acidic ponds can ingest the polluted water, which causes severe trauma to
their gastrointestinal tracts and eventual death. The acidic water removes
natural oils from the birds' feathers causing death by drowning or hypothermia.
Mitigation:
All
sulfuric acid solution collection ponds and process water and wastewater ponds
must be covered.
COMMENT 4B: DISRUPTION BY THE MINE OF WATER RUNOFF TO DAVIDSON CANYON WASH
POSES DEADLY THREATS TO ENDANGERED WILDLIFE.
Discussion: Disruption
of the water runoff to Davidson Canyon Wash (see COMMENT 1A), lowering of the
local groundwater table (see COMMENT 1B), and/or pollution of water in Davidson
Canyon Wash by the Mine (see COMMENT 2A) will likely have an adverse impact on
the surface water of the Cienega Creek. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife
service has classified the Cienega Creek (upper and lower) as a critical
habitat for the Gila Chub (Gila Intermedia) which is designated as endangered
with critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act.
COMMENT 5: THE MINE WILL THREATEN THE REGION’S RURAL ECONOMY, PROPERTY
VALUES, AND LIFESTYLE AND MUST BE FURTHER AND INDEPENDENTLY STUDIED
TO BE SUFFICIENTLY UNDERSTOOD AND AVOIDED OR FULLY MITIGATED. Augusta plans to
undertake a massive industrial project that will threaten the rural economy and
property values of Elgin, Sonoita, Patagonia, and surrounding region as
discussed in a study conducted by the Sonoran Institute (see Attachment E which
is incorporated herein by reference). The
study concludes that if the Mine displaces only one percent of annual travel
and tourism-related spending in the region, the economic loss will be greater
than the entire annual payroll of the Mine.
Many residents have lived in the
region for generations and have farms, ranches, and small businesses. In the late 1960s and 1970s
there was an influx of people seeking a rural lifestyle. More recently, there has been a growing
number of new residents looking for property in a scenic setting and young
retirees seeking an active outdoor lifestyle.
Most recently, there have been developments and opportunities in Elgin,
Sonoita, and Patagonia that have shifted the economic base from cattle to
tourism including camping, hunting, fishing, astronomy, biking, birding, wine
tasting, recreation and renewal, country fairs, festivals, rodeos, horse
racing, bed and breakfasts, inns, art galleries, boutiques, and gourmet
restaurants.
The presence of an
open pit copper mine in the region’s midst will devastate the unspoiled natural
environment that is the foundation of its rural economy and lifestyle. And, if Arizona Scenic Highway 83—the
principal route between greater Tucson and the Sonoita crossroads—is no longer
scenic or safe, then Elgin, Sonoita, and Patagonia will cease to be the prime
tourist destinations that they have become.
Augusta understates
the threat that the Mine will pose to the region’s rural economy, property
values, and lifestyle.
Mitigation:
·
The threat that the Mine will pose to the
region’s rural economy, property values, and lifestyle is of such significance,
complexity, and scale that the development of effective mitigation measures
will necessarily require an independent and comprehensive study of these
adverse impacts by a multidisciplinary team of recognized experts in their respective
fields. Recommended mitigation measures
resulting from this study must then be incorporated in the MPO, implemented by
Augusta in the event the MPO is approved, and carefully monitored by the Forest
Service.
·
As a condition
of Forest Service approval of Augusta’s MPO, Augusta and any successors in
ownership of the Mine must be required to agree in writing that Augusta shall compensate all persons for lost income and lost
property value due to the Mine.
COMMENT 6: THE
MINE’S ELECTRICAL POWER DEMANDS CANNOT BE MET BY LOCAL PRODUCERS’ CURRENT
PRODUCTION CAPACITY AND EXISTING DELIVERY INFRASTRUCTURE. Augusta estimates the total connected
electrical load required to operate the Mine will be 133 mega-watts (MW) and
will require a minimum transmission line voltage of 138 kilo-volts (kV). The Mine’s water production wells and part
of the pit will be in TRICO’s service area; the balance of the Mine’s pit, all
of the processing plant, and ancillary facilities will be in Tucson Electric
Power’s (TEP) service area. Augusta
presents four alternative plans for supplying power to the Mine preferring
alternative number four in which TEP will be the primary electrical power
provider. This alternative will require
a multiple service territory and provider agreement between TEP and TRICO which
must be submitted to the Arizona Corporation Commission for review and final
approval prior to implementation.
Augusta’s preferred alternative number four will require connecting the 138 kV transmission line from the TEP 345/138 kV south substation to TEP’s Vail-Kantor line which must first be upgraded to 138 kV. They will join where the two lines cross at Santa Rita Road when the Vail-Kantor transmission line is upgraded to 138 kV service voltage. This alternative, however, will not be adequate to meet the Mine’s 133 MW requirement (see Attachment D which is incorporated herein by reference). An additional 20 MW of power must come from turbines in Nogales which are fueled primarily by natural gas, with diesel as backup. During winter months, the existing El Paso natural gas line can barely service its Santa Cruz County customers. Using the Nogales turbines to make up the connected load shortfall will tax the existing natural gas capability beyond its limits. There are approximately three days of natural gas storage in Nogales which is adequate only for temporary outages to the existing transmission line. Diesel fuel will be burned by the Nogales turbines when the natural gas supply reaches its limit, and Nogales is an EPA non-attainment area for clean air.
Neither of the other alternatives involving TEP presented by Augusta can meet
the Mine’s electrical power requirements.
TEP states that TRICO's transmission company (SWTC) has 230 kV
transmission capability from the Bicknell substation (west Green Valley) to
build adequate support in one transmission line for the Mine, but that TRICO
does not have a source to deliver 133 MW to the Bicknell substation. None of the electrical power supply options
proposed by Augusta can provide power to Rosemont using existing delivery
infrastructure or meet the Mine’s 133 MW power requirements.
COMMENT 7: MANY HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCE SITES HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED WITHIN AND NEARBY THE MINE’S PROPOSED PERIMETER IN PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYS. MOST MAPPED SITE LOCATIONS ARE SUSPECT AND MUST BE INDEPENDENTLY RELOCATED USING GPS OR GIS TECHNOLOGIES, RE-DOCUMENTED, AND RE-EXAMINED BY PERTINENT TRIBAL AND OTHER AUTHORITIES. The Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan states the following:
“Arizona and New Mexico have a wealth of historic and
prehistoric cultural resources. Although all such resources are currently
protected from disturbance by law, many people advocate a more aggressive
approach to management of cultural values. The issue is:
1. The amount of time and investment to interpretation of cultural
sites.”
In the 1970’s and 1980’s, the Arizona State Museum conducted an
archaeological survey, testing, and data recovery in a large area around
Rosemont and identified over 130 historic and cultural resource sites within
and nearby the Mine’s proposed perimeter.
Because of occupation by the O’odham people and their ancestors, and
because of current tribal use for plant gathering, there may also be sites
important to Native Americans in the project area. Coronado National Forest Archaeologist Mary Farrell has concluded
that the majority of the sites located in the Arizona State Museum survey were
mapped prior to the availability of GPS technology and are, therefore, suspect.
Mitigation:
The proposed Mine site must be independently re-surveyed
using current GPS or GIS technologies, re-documented, and examined by the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and pertinent tribal and other
authorities. Sites of cultural and
religious significance can be eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places, even if there are no physical remains that would qualify as an
archaeological site. Each historical or
cultural site identified must receive the maximum protection permitted under
the National Historical Preservation Act, the Native American Graves Protection
and Repatriation Act, and other applicable laws even if doing so will require
Augusta to modify its planned land use within or nearby the Mine’s perimeter.
COMMENT 8: THE MINE OPERATOR FAILS TO MEET A REASONABLE INDUSTRY STANDARD OF EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATION. Augusta, a young company that has never operated a mine, overstates its mine operating abilities. A thorough investigation of the professional, financial, and legal histories of Augusta and Augusta’s directors and officers is necessary. Augusta, its MPO, and its supporting documents must be evaluated and held to the highest standards permitted under law and Public policy. Considering the dismal EPA record of even experienced mine operators and the high risk of irreversible damage to the Coronado National Forest, to regional water resources, and to the region’s rural economy that the Mine poses, it would be imprudent to approve such a mine in the hands of a novice operator.
COMMENT
8A: THE CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST LAND
AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN MUST NOT BE REVISED OR WAIVED IN PART OR IN WHOLE
TO ACCOMMODATE ANY DEFICIENCY IN AUGUSTA, ITS MPO, OR ITS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS.
Discussion: The Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan
in its Introduction—Purpose of the Plan states in part the following:
“The
planning principles in the NFMA regulations (36 CFR 219.1 (b)) were integrated
throughout the process. These principles are:
…(12)
Establishment of quantitative and qualitative standards and guidelines for land
and resource planning and management…”
The
established quantitative and qualitative standards and guidelines for land and
resource planning and management were developed by the Forest Service to set a
high bar for all who seek to use public lands in the Coronado National
Forest. It is necessary, therefore,
that any proposed use of these public lands rise to the level of the established
Forest Service standards and guidelines, not that the standards and guidelines
be lowered to accommodate a deficient
public land use proposal.
Mitigation:
In the event
Augusta’s MPO is approved, each proposed successor in Mine ownership must be
required as a condition of ownership transfer to submit a new Mine Plan of
Operation that shall be subject to NEPA scoping, review, and approval by the
Forest Service and all other FEDERAL, STATE, AND COUNTY agencies having
jurisdiction. Such provisions shall be
memorialized in a binding agreement between the Forest Service and the
Applicant.
COMMENT 9: AUGUSTA UNDERESTIMATES THE SCOPE AND COSTS OF MINE REMEDIATION, RECLAMATION, AND CLOSURE. THE ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING AUGUSTA’S INITIAL RECLAMATION BOND COST ESTIMATE MUST BE CAREFULLY EXAMINED IN DETAIL AND THE ESTIMATE MUST BE MODIFIED AS NECESSARY. Underestimation of the scope of activities and costs necessary for mine remediation, reclamation, and closure has become a significant national issue with modern mining. In the last 20 years, at least 15 “state-of-the-art” mines have filed for protection under bankruptcy leaving to the taxpayers the immense financial burden of mine closure, remediation of environmental contamination, and habitat reclamation totaling over $12-billion (see Attachment F which is incorporated herein by reference).
Impacts from various monitoring scenarios need to be thoroughly addressed. In general, monitoring for adverse environmental impacts needs to be both robust and continuous throughout construction, operation, and reclamation of the mine. In addition, an adaptive management strategy needs to be completed prior to the initiation of the project to ensure that monitoring results will be utilized in the most effective way possible. There is a vast array of parameters that could be monitored; a monitoring plan grounded in the best available science is crucial to ensure that adverse environmental impacts are avoided and minimized far into the future.
Augusta proposes a reclamation plan that will be
carried out concurrently with ongoing mining operations. This option allows incremental bonding and
phased bond release. This bonding
option requires that several complicated steps must be performed without
error. The initial bond estimate must
be accurately calculated based on preliminary conceptual designs, drawings,
maps, and a number of subjective assumptions regarding future events and cost
factors. As more detailed designs and
real-time information become available, the bond cost estimate is recalculated
either to confirm the original estimate or to modify bonding requirements. As concurrent reclamation milestones
are met, phased bond releases are authorized.
And, when mine reclamation and closure are successfully completed, the
remaining bond amount is released.
If, however, Augusta is unable to complete the requirements
of mine reclamation and closure, the Forest Service must rely upon the
reclamation bond and the accuracy of its underlying cost estimate to accomplish
what Augusta could not. Therefore, in
the interest of avoiding all taxpayer financial liability, every effort must be
made by the Forest Service to verify on an ongoing basis Augusta’s reclamation
bond cost estimate or modify the bond requirements accordingly.
Augusta’s current reclamation bond cost estimate underestimates future costs. For example, future diesel fuel costs are estimated by Augusta based on an incorrect current per-gallon price of $3.20. As we are all painfully aware, the current diesel fuel per-gallon price is in excess of $4.75 and climbing—a cost underestimation by Augusta of 33 percent. Augusta’s reclamation bond cost estimate must be built upon correct starting numbers and an accurate future inflation factor.
COMMENT 9A:
WELL DEFINED CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION MUST BE
DEVELOPED FOR EACH RECLAMATION ACTIVITY UNDER THE RECLAMATION PLAN TO AVOID PREMATURE PHASED BOND RELEASES.
Discussion: Incremental bonding and
phased bond release require diligent and continuous monitoring of the Mine’s
implementation of the concurrent reclamation plan. For example, mine re-vegitation practices have not had a
successful long-term track record in the U. S. Southwest—many plants are
planted, but few survive. Therefore, in
this example, a phased bond release for mine re-vegitation must not be
authorized until the plantings in question have met well defined criteria for
healthy survival—a defined number of plants per unit area are planted, and a
defined number survive for a defined period of time.
Mitigation:
The Forest Service must not authorize a phased bond release until
the underlying reclamation activity is successfully completed. Well defined criteria for determining
successful completion for each reclamation activity must be developed by the
Forest Service.
COMMENT 9B: COSTS OF IMPLEMENTING THE MITIGATION PLAN
AND OF REMEDIATION OF POSSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION MUST BE ACCURATELY
ESTIMATED AND INCLUDED IN THE RECLAMATION BOND ESTIMATE.
Discussion:
Upon finalizing a mitigation plan for the Mine, the costs of implementing
the plan must be estimated and included in the reclamation bond estimate. Mitigation should also be in
concurrence with the guidelines of Pima County’s Sonoran Desert Conservation
Plan and Conservation Lands System. In addition, the estimated costs of remediation of any
environmental contamination by the Mine that may be discovered either before or
after mine closure must also be included in the bond cost estimate. These costs must be included in the
reclamation bond cost estimate since the Forest Service must rely upon the
reclamation bond to accomplish the mitigation plan and remediation of any
environmental contamination by the Mine in the event that Augusta does
not. The burden of financial liabilities
arising from Augusta’s failure to successfully implement the mitigation plan or
from environmental contamination by the Mine must not be borne by the public.
Mitigation:
The discussion under COMMENT 9B should be included in its entirety
as a Mitigation Measure in the Draft EIS.
COMMENT 9C:
WELL DEFINED CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF MINE
CLOSURE MUST BE DEVELOPED UNDER THE RECLAMATION PLAN TO AVOID PREMATURE PHASED
BOND RELEASES.
Discussion: The
costs of mine closure must be estimated and included in the reclamation bond
estimate. These costs must be
included in the reclamation bond cost estimate since the Forest Service must
rely upon the reclamation bond to accomplish mine closure in the event that
Augusta does not. Well defined criteria
for determining successful completion of mine closure must be developed by the
Forest Service.
Mitigation:
The discussion under COMMENT 9C should be included in its entirety
as a Mitigation Measure in the Draft EIS.
COMMENT 10: THE MINE WILL ADVERSELY IMPACT LOCAL EMERGENCY SERVICES. Part of the Mine will be in the Sonoita/Elgin Fire District, a tax-based emergency service provider. An open pit copper mine is an extremely dangerous work environment. Serious injury and death can result from accidents involving heavy earth-moving equipment, ore-crushing and milling machinery, high explosives, flammable materials, and caustic and poisonous chemicals among other things. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health reports that for surface mining operations in 2005 the non-lethal lost-time injury rate was 4,500 per 100,000 FTE employees and the fatality rate was 34 per 100,000 FTE employees (see Reference 2). Mines, consequently, are notorious users of emergency services, particularly emergency medical services.
Based on the NIOSH statistics, if the Mine being proposed will have 500 employees, there will be an average of 22.5 serious injuries per year and one fatality every 6 years. In addition, significantly increased congestion on SR83 due to heavy-truck traffic arriving at and departing from the Mine will certainly cause an increase in the number of vehicle-related injuries and deaths per year on SR83 (see COMMENT 2D). The Mine will have a direct and adverse impact on the Sonoita/Elgin Fire District’s staffing requirements and related costs—cost increases that will be borne not by Augusta, but primarily by local property taxpayers in Sonoita and Elgin.
Mitigation:
The
Sonoita/Elgin Fire District shall be fully reimbursed by the Applicant for all
costs (equipment, maintenance, and staffing) resulting from the construction,
operation, remediation, and reclamation of the proposed project. In no event shall such cost increases be
borne by local property taxpayers in Sonoita and Elgin. This mitigation measure should also be
applied to other impacted emergency service providers, including, but not
limited to those in Patagonia, Vail, Sahuarita, and Corona de Tucson.
COMMENT 11: THE U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, THE U. S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, THE U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERING, THE STATE OF ARIZONA, AND PIMA COUNTY MUST BE INVITED TO PARTICIPATE MORE DIRECTLY AS COOPERATING AGENCIES IN THE NEPA REVIEW PROCESS. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency possesses valuable experience and environmental technical expertise relevant to the proposed project. The U. S. Department of Homeland Security has valuable experience and national security expertise relevant to the proposed project. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineering possesses valuable experience and engineering expertise relevant to the proposed project. The U. S. Bureau of Land Management and the State of Arizona are stakeholders and possess valuable experience and resource management and technical expertise relevant to the proposed project. In addition, the State of Arizona possesses valuable experience and state highway/transportation expertise relevant to the proposed project. Pima County is a stakeholder and a national leader in regional conservation planning through the adoption and ongoing implementation of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. The involvement of these key governmental agencies in the NEPA review process will not only provide useful knowledge and expertise on the important national security, engineering, state highway/transportation, and ecological aspects of the Mine area, it will also increase public confidence that the NEPA process will be as thorough, inclusive, and transparent as possible.
SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Coronado National Forest Land and
Resource Management Plan states the
following:
“The Southwestern United States continues to produce
a significant portion of the nation's mineral supply. Extraction of minerals has a potential to disrupt other Forest
values, if not carefully regulated. In a few sensitive areas it is necessary to
exclude mineral activity. The issue can be stated as follows:
1. Identification of sensitive areas and formulation
of recommendations for needed withdrawals from mineral entry.”
Federal approval of mining in the National Forest does not
mean approval of every mine in the National Forest. There were times and places where large mining operations
stimulated westward migration, created the economy of sparsely populated
regions, and helped them grow. The
proposed Rosemont Mine, however, is in the wrong place at the wrong time. Pima and Santa Cruz Counties and greater
Tucson—the region’s largest urban center—already have large, established,
diverse, and growing populations and economies. This mine will do much more harm than good to this already
populated and well developed region.
In preparing a Mine Plan of Operation, it is in the mine
owner’s best self-interest to understate the risks the mine poses to the
region’s water resources, environment, and its rural and urban economies, and
to overstate the rewards that will accrue to the surrounding communities. The sad legacy of the industry has proven
that mining done the wrong way is devastating both to people and the
environment. Despite the best intentions and newest technologies, large open
pit copper mines can and do cause soil, water, air, noise, traffic, and light
pollution. Moreover, large open pit
copper mines can and do fail, leaving the immense financial burdens of mine
closure, remediation of environmental contamination, and habitat reclamation to
the taxpayers.
The people of greater Tucson, Pima County, and
Santa Cruz County have spoken through their own voices and actions, and the
voices and actions of their elected Municipal, County, State, and Federal
representatives—the very real economic, societal, and environmental risks posed
by the Rosemont Mine are unacceptable and far outweigh any uncertain benefits
that might accrue to the residents of those urban and rural communities who will
be taking the greatest risks.
A large open pit copper mine at Rosemont in the
Coronado National Forest might be a good idea—that is if society places no
value on Arizona’s scarce water resources, on the beauty, calm, and enjoyment
of unspoiled natural places, or on the lives and livelihoods of the
hundreds-of-thousands of people who depend upon them.
II. Alternatives to the Mine
Centrality of Alternatives to the NEPA
Process
Among the substantive provisions set forth
under NEPA is a detailed statement by the responsible official setting forth
and evaluating alternatives to the proposed action [§102 (C) (iii)]. In its
regulations implementing NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) calls the
alternatives analysis section the "heart of the EIS", and requires
that agencies shall:
(a)
Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and for
alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the
reasons for their having been eliminated.
(b)
Devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail including
the proposed action so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits.
(c)
Include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.
(d)
Include the alternative of no action.
(e)
Identify the agency's preferred alternative or alternatives, if one or more
exists, in the draft statement and identify such alternative in the final
statement unless another law prohibits the expression of such a preference.
(f)
Include appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the proposed
action or alternatives.
40 CFR 1502.14
Evaluation
of alternatives in the Draft EIS should present the proposed action and all the
alternatives in comparative form, to define the issues and provide a clear
basis for choice among alternatives. Alternatives analysis should clearly
indicate why and how the particular range of project alternatives was
developed, including what kind of public and agency input was used. In
addition, alternatives analysis should explain why and how alternatives were
eliminated from further consideration. The criteria used to eliminate
alternatives must be made explicit and stated clearly, as well as identifying
at what point in the process the alternatives were removed, who was involved in
establishing the criteria for assessing alternatives, and the measures for
assessing the alternatives' effectiveness.
The authors of
the Draft EIS should be candid about the rationale for generating, evaluating,
and eliminating alternatives. Being as specific as possible is important. If an
alternative is eliminated from further consideration because it "does not
meet the purpose and need," a detailed discussion must be provided to
adequately explain how or why the alternative does not meet the purpose and
need. During the draft EIS stage all reasonable alternatives,
or the reasonable range of alternatives, should be considered and discussed at
a comparable level of detail to avoid any indication of a bias towards a
particular alternative(s).
Applicant’s Failure to Identify
Alternatives
The Applicant
fails to consider any meaningful alternatives in the proposed MPO. In fact, the
term “alternative” or “alternatives” appears only seven times in the entire
report, and only once in terms of a substantive alternative (reference is made
to “dry stacking” as the preferable alternative). Moreover, the MPO contains no references to USFS policy documents
or published regulations, CEQ or NEPA documents, or within the text, no
reference to any form of explicit environmental assessment conducted by
Applicant or the MPO authors. The entire MPO makes only one generic reference
to reducing the environmental impacts of mine operations, and only mentions
generalized approaches to mitigation seven times.
In brief, then,
the proposed MPO fails to demonstrate any serious consideration of alternatives
which would reduce adverse environmental impacts, or even to provide a gesture
toward meeting the spirit and letter of the National Environmental Policy Act,
and is an affront to our nation’s policy on the environment. Since the Applicant fails to consider
alternatives in their application it remains unclear how the Forest Service, in
its capacity of Lead Agency, could make a determination of MPO adequacy for
federal agency action under NEPA.
Generation of Alternatives by the Lead
Agency
The task of
generating alternatives to the proposed action is thus the responsibility of
the US Forest Service, other cooperating and commenting agencies, and the
general public. Given the purpose and
charge of the Forest Service as well as the agency staffing, expertise and
experience, it is difficult to understand how the requisite level of technical
capacity can be brought to bear in generating credible technically sound
alternatives solely within the agency.
Similarly, the Environmental Consultants selected to contribute to the
preparation of the Draft EIS are not staffed to prepare credible technically
sound alternatives to the proposed MPO. Such technical alternatives must be
generated by an independent set of consultants with expertise in mining
technology.
Scoping Alternatives
This section of the scoping document
identifies twelve (12) alternatives in addition to the proposed project. These alternatives reflect a range of
strategies to significantly reduce adverse environmental impacts: no action,
alternative uses of public lands reduction of project scale, alternative
types of mining, alternative locations for selected elements of the proposed
project; transportation types and routes, timetable; and alternative processing
technologies. This list is not intended
to be exhaustive, and during the preparation of the Draft EIR other alternatives
will surely be generated and evaluated accordingly.
The following alternatives are generally
listed in order of preference as regards reducing or eliminating adverse
environmental impacts. Those
alternatives with the least impact are listed first, with the successive
alternatives listed in terms of likely increases in the type, magnitude,
extent, and significance of adverse impacts.
Note also that some alternatives could be used in combination,
particularly with respect to placement of spoils, transportation types and
routes, and processing technologies, particularly with respect to water use and
recycling. This discussion does not
address these possible combinations, however during the preparation of the
Draft EIS such combinations should be fully explored in order to identify
alternatives (and sub-alternative combinations) which result in significant
reductions in adverse environmental impacts.
Alternative
1: No Action. NEPA requires the consideration of the “No
Action” alternative. Assessment of this
“no action” alternative should not simply state that there will be no impacts,
but should list the impacts avoided as a result of the alternative as well as
the public benefits of “no action.” In
the case of a large, open-pit copper mine and processing facility, the “No
Action” alternative will obviously eliminate the many adverse and potentially
significant environmental impacts associated with the project as proposed,
including, but not limited to surface and groundwater resources; toxic materials,
emissions and airborne toxic dust; noise; vehicular traffic; night lighting; visual
quality; recreation; wildlife and wildlife habitat; regional rural economy,
property values, and lifestyle; energy use; historic and cultural resources;
and effects on local emergency services. In all likelihood, the “No Action”
alternative will be determined to be the “environmentally superior” alternative
as well.
Alternative 1A: Alternative Uses of Public Lands.
This alternative is a variation of the NEPA requirement to assess the
“No Action” alternative (see above), and, in fact, could be incorporated into
that alternative. Under this
alternative, alternative uses of public lands would be considered in contrast
to those set forth in the description of the “Proposed Action” in the Notice of
Intent (NOI). According to the NOI,
“Project-related activities to be addressed in the EIS include, but are not
limited to, the following: …
·
Construction,
operation and reclamation of an ore-processing plant, tailings, waste rock and
leach facilities on NFS land adjacent to the mine. (emphasis added) …”
Inasmuch as these uses are not
appropriate uses of public lands, this alternative explores the public benefits
of alternative uses of NFS lands to those listed above rather than simply the
passive alternative of “no action”.
Such uses could include, but not be limited to the following
(individually, and, as applicable, in combination):
·
Public
acquisition of privately held property within the northern range of the Santa
Rita Mountains to provide in-perpetuity conservation of important open space
lands within the greater Tucson region.
Such public acquisition could also involve a land exchange with Augusta.
·
Incorporation
of the northern range of the Santa Rita Mountains, particularly that portion of
the range within the Cienega Creek watershed, into Las Cienegas National
Conservation Area (LCNCA). The LCNCA
provides an ideal model for utilizing land exchange and intergovernmental
cooperation as a means of achieving long-term conservation of open space lands.
Coronado National Forest lands are contiguous to LCNCA and BLM and the State of
Arizona are already partners in LCNCA.
·
Enhanced
grazing lands in conjunction with the Ranch Conservation element of the Pima
County Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan.
These and similar alternatives
would eliminate or significantly reduce the many adverse and environmental
impacts associated with the uses proposed for NFS lands in the MPO. Conceivably, one of these alternatives could
be determined to be the “environmentally superior” alternative as well.
Alternative
2: Limited Project. Under this alternative, mining excavation
and placement of all spoils would be limited wholly to fee simple lands and
patented mining claims, and thus provide maximum protection of all public trust
lands – National Forest, Bureau of Land Management, and State of Arizona. This alternative would prohibit placement of
all spoils and overburden on public lands thus protecting the five square miles
of public land designated for permanent mine tailings, facilities, waste rock
storage, and open pit excavation proposed in the current Mine Plan of
Operation.
Due to the reduced area of disturbance as well as the reduced scale and level of mining and processing activity, as well as eliminating the deposition of overburden and spoils on public land, this alternative would likely result in substantial reductions in a variety of impact categories, including, but not limited to surface and groundwater resources; toxic materials, emissions and airborne toxic dust; noise; vehicular traffic; night lighting; visual quality; recreation; wildlife and wildlife habitat; regional rural economy, property values, and lifestyle; energy use; historic and cultural resources; and effects on local emergency services. (Relevant Comment numbers: 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5, 6, 7, and 10).
Alternative
3: In-Situ Mine. In-situ means “in the natural or original
position.” This alternative involves
obtaining the desired material with only minimum physical disturbance of the
mine site, as the ore is leached in its existing underground location. The alternative consists of a series of
injection wells and recovery wells.
These wells, constructed with acid-resistant casings, penetrate the
copper-bearing ore, and are sealed from the surface through the ore zone. A weak, acid leach solution is pumped
through the cracks in the ore, dissolving the copper into a concentrated
solution, which in turn is pumped up through the injection wells for
processing. A continuous ring of recovery wells surround the injection wells to
prevent leach solution from escaping.
This alternative thus avoids the excavation of ore rock and the disposal
of overburden and tailings. Processing
can take place off-site thus minimizing adverse impacts at the mine site. When the copper ore body is depleted any
hazardous materials remaining in the ore zone are flushed out through pumping
and rinsing with fresh water. Once the
wells are cleaned, they are filled with cement and the land returned to its
former use.
Due to the reduced area of disturbance as well as the absence of overburden and spoils on public land, this alternative would likely result in substantial reductions in a variety of impact categories, including, but not limited to surface and groundwater resources; toxic materials, emissions and airborne toxic dust; noise; vehicular traffic; night lighting; visual quality; recreation; wildlife and wildlife habitat; regional rural economy, property values, and lifestyle; energy use; historic and cultural resources; and effects on local emergency services. (Relevant Comment numbers: 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5, 6, 7, and 10).
Alternative
4: Underground Mine. This alternative would involve sinking mine
shafts to subterranean levels containing ore and then constructing horizontal
tunnels, called adits, to reach the underground ore deposits. Through the use of this alternative, the
large, highly visible open-pit excavation would be avoided, along with the
surface deposition of a large volume of overburden waste rock. Modern underground mining technologies
utilize blasting with explosives and typically utilize heavy-duty mechanical
cutting equipment. Use of robotic technologies may be feasible. Ore is
extracted via mechanical rail conveyances, thus the ore can be removed from the
immediate mine site to off-site locations for processing. Reclamation of
this underground mining alternative would involve closure of the shafts and
tunnels, as well as reclamation of mine tailings.
Due to the reduced area of disturbance as well as the reduced magnitude and extent of overburden and spoils on public land, this alternative would likely result in reductions in a variety of impact categories, including, but not limited to surface and groundwater resources; toxic materials, emissions and airborne toxic dust; noise; vehicular traffic; night lighting; visual quality; recreation; wildlife and wildlife habitat; regional rural economy, property values, and lifestyle; energy use; historic and cultural resources; and effects on local emergency services. (Relevant Comment numbers: 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5, 6, 7, and 10).
Alternative
5: Continuous Pit Backfill.
Under this alternative the project would utilize a continuous backfill
technology, whereby the open pit would be progressively filled with the waste
rock, spoils, and overburden generated as the excavation proceeds. This alternative would thus eliminate the
waste material placed on public lands, although at the project outset might
warrant temporary and very limited storage of such materials on adjoining
public lands. This alternative would
also eliminate the open pit at the completion of extraction.
Due to the reduced area of disturbance as well as eliminating the long-term effects of overburden and spoils on public land, this alternative would likely result in reductions in a variety of impact categories, including, but not limited to surface and groundwater resources; toxic materials, emissions and airborne toxic dust; noise; vehicular traffic; night lighting; visual quality; recreation; wildlife and wildlife habitat; regional rural economy, property values, and lifestyle; energy use; historic and cultural resources; and effects on local emergency services. (Relevant Comment numbers: 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5, 6, 7, and 10).
Alternatives 6 through 10 are concerned with alternative modes and
routes for transporting materials – including ore, waste rock and tailings –
equipment, and personnel to and from the mine site. These alternatives include the use of rail transportation,
mechanical conveyances, and hydraulic conveyances as well as alternative
vehicular routing in order to reduce the potential adverse impacts of the
proposed project.
Alternative
6: Rail Transport of Ore, Spoils and Tailings from the Mine Site.
Under this alternative, all material – ore, spoils, tailings, and waste
rock would be transported from the site via a new rail line constructed to the
mine site. Overburden would be stockpiled on site for use during the
reclamation phase. The ore would be
transported to a processing site, and the so-called waste material could then
be utilized off-site in other industrial processes, including but not limited
to crushed rock for construction use, construction land fill, road bed
construction, and similar industrial uses.
Due to the long-term effects of eliminating overburden and spoils on public land, this alternative would likely result in reductions in a variety of impact categories, including, but not limited to surface and groundwater resources; toxic materials, emissions and airborne toxic dust; noise; vehicular traffic and public safety; night lighting; visual quality; recreation; wildlife and wildlife habitat; regional rural economy, property values, and lifestyle; energy use; historic and cultural resources; and effects on local emergency services. (Relevant Comment numbers: 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5, 6, 7, and 10).
Alternative
7: Rail Transport of All Ore from the Mine Site.
Under this alternative, all ore would be transported to an off-site
processing location, preferably adjacent or near an existing smelter. Transport
from the mine site would be via a new rail line constructed between the mine
site and a main rail line. Two routing
options exist – one connecting to the north, the other to the west.
Due to the relocation of the processing facility to a more appropriate off-site location, this alternative would likely result in reductions in a variety of impact categories, including, but not limited to surface and groundwater resources; toxic materials, emissions and airborne toxic dust; noise; vehicular traffic and public safety; night lighting; visual quality; recreation; wildlife and wildlife habitat; regional rural economy, property values, and lifestyle; energy use; historic and cultural resources; and effects on local emergency services. (Relevant Comment numbers: 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5, 6, 7, and 10).
Alternative
8: Mechanical Conveyance of Ore to Rail Head. This alternative is similar to
Alternative 7 but would utilize some form of mechanical conveyance, such as a
mine cart conveyor system, down the west side of the Santa Rita Mountains to a
rail head for shipment on the existing rail line connecting Nogales and
Tucson. This alternative could be
undertaken in conjunction with all other alternatives (see above), and could be
used for shipment of both the ore product and the so-called waste materials.
Due to the conveyance of ore to a rail head for shipping to an off-site processing facility, and the removal of processing from the on-site operations, this alternative would likely result in reductions in a variety of impact categories, including, but not limited to surface and groundwater resources; toxic materials, emissions and airborne toxic dust; noise; vehicular traffic and public safety; night lighting; visual quality; recreation; wildlife and wildlife habitat; regional rural economy, property values, and lifestyle; energy use; historic and cultural resources; and effects on local emergency services. (Relevant Comment numbers: 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5, 6, 7, and 10).
Alternative
9: Hydrologic Conveyance of Wet Ore Concentrate to Processing Site West of the
Santa Rita Mountains. This alternative is similar to Alternative
8, but would utilize some form of hydrologic/pipeline conveyance down the west
side of the Santa Rita Mountains to a processing/drying site near Santa Rita
Road. According to the Applicant, 89%
of the water could be returned to the mine area for reuse. The ore product
could then be trucked to the Port of Tucson railhead at Kolb & I-10 or to a
railhead on the existing rail line connecting Nogales and Tucson. This alternative could be undertaken in
conjunction with other mine-type and processing alternatives (see above).
Due to the hydrologic conveyance of ore to a rail head for shipping to an off-site processing facility, and the removal of processing from the on-site operations, this alternative would likely result in reductions in a variety of impact categories, including, but not limited to surface and groundwater resources; toxic materials, emissions and airborne toxic dust; noise; vehicular traffic and public safety; night lighting; visual quality; recreation; wildlife and wildlife habitat; regional rural economy, property values, and lifestyle; energy use; historic and cultural resources; and effects on local emergency services. (Relevant Comment numbers: 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5, 6, 7, and 10).
Alternative
10: Loop Road Circulation System. This alternative would utilize
either a tunnel through or a summit road over the Santa Rita Mountains so that
full ore trucks would road through a tunnel or over the top so that full trucks would go west
to I-19, north to I-10, and then to the Port of Tucson railhead at Kolb and
I-10; empty trucks would return on the East side of the Santa Rita Mountains
via SR83.
This alternative would likely result in reductions in a variety of impact categories, including, but not limited to emissions; noise; vehicular traffic and public safety; recreation; and effects on local emergency services. (Relevant Comment numbers: 2B, 2D, 3B, and 10).
Alternative
11: Modified Time-Table. The following alternatives address extensions
or other changes in the timetable for mine operations which could result in
reduced impacts:
a.
Extend Mine
lifetime to 40 or 50 years
b.
Suspend mining
operations during high winds
c.
Suspend mining
operations during extreme drought conditions
d.
Suspend mining
operations during periods of excellent “seeing conditions” at the surrounding
dark-sky observatories
Alternative
12: Alternative Processing Technologies.
In addition to the alternatives listed above, the Draft EIS should
expand the range of technical alternatives within the various processes and
techniques proposed in the MPO and alternatives to the MPO as augmented in this
scoping document and in subsequent alternatives generated through scoping and
the formal environmental assessment phase.
Such technical alternatives must be generated by an independent set of
consultants with demonstrable expertise in mining technology and a proven
record for successfully utilizing alternative mining methods and technologies
which significantly reduce adverse environmental impacts.
Issues Related to Novice Mine
Operator
It is also important to note that despite the optimistic potentials of incorporating beneficial alternatives into the MPO, the adverse impacts of this open-pit mine will likely be exacerbated due to inexperience of its novice operator. Historically, reclamation of open-pit copper mining has proved wholly unsuccessful or unsatisfactory, thus there is a very high likelihood that the proposed project would lead to the same results, particularly in the hands of a novice operator. As such, adverse effects from inadequate reclamation and/or remediation might be reduced but likely not eliminated under any of the alternatives. Moreover, the costs of inadequate reclamation and/or remediation invariably result in burdening the public with the long-term economic and social costs of remediation. There is a very high likelihood that the proposed project, regardless of alternatives, would lead to the same unsatisfactory results, particularly in the hands of a novice operator. (Relevant Comment numbers: 8A, 9A, and 9B).
REFERENCES:
1. http://www.scorecard.org (“total
environmental releases” in “Arizona” from “all reporting sectors”)
2. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/statistics/
ATTACHMENTS:
A. “Hydrogeology of the Santa Rita Rosemont Project Site Conceptual Flow
Model and Water Balance,” Tom Myers PhD, Hydrologic Consultant, Prepared for
Pima County Board of Supervisors, 2007.
B. “Hydrogeology of the Santa Rita Rosemont
Project Site Numerical Groundwater Modeling of the Conceptual Flow Model and Effects
of the Construction of the Proposed Open Pit,” Tom Myers PhD, Hydrologic Consultant,
Prepared for Pima County Board of Supervisors, 2008.
C. Letter from Melvin Green and
Associates to Empire Ranch Foundation, June 1, 2008.
D. “NEPA Scoping Comments for the Rosemont Copper Project Environmental
Impact Statement,” Marshall Magruder, 2008.
E. “Mining’s Potential Economic Impacts in the Santa Rita and Patagonia
Mountains Region of Southeastern Arizona,” Josef E. Marlow, Ph.D., Sonoran
Institute Land and Resource Economist, Prepared for Save the Scenic Santa
Ritas, 2007.
F. “Comments for EIS Analysis for the Rosemont Copper Project,” Cheryl Rennie, 2008.
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT E
ATTACHMENT F