Archives

Rosemont mine rich in copper, poor in public support

---

NEAR THE SANTA RITA MOUNTAINS — This clearing, at an elevation of more than 5,000 feet and just below the peaks of the northern Santa Rita Mountains, provides a spectacular view of the rolling hills of grassland and oak that stretch across the valley floor below.

In spite of the beautiful views, it is not the seen but the unseen – specifically, the rich copper ore buried underground – that has made this wilderness area 30 miles south of Tucson the focus of extraordinary public interest.

In June, Rosemont Copper, a Canadian-owned mineral exploration company, submitted a mining plan of operations to the National Forest Service in a bid to construct an $800 million open-pit copper mine and ore-processing facility here.

The move ignited a smoldering controversy into one of southern Arizona’s most explosive land-use debates in years.

At more than a third of a mile deep, and encompassing nearly 1,000 acres, the mine’s open pit would gouge a vast crater out of these hills, displacing millions of tons of earth and rock. According to Rosemont’s estimates, the mine would produce 230 million pounds of copper, 5 million pounds of a steel-making alloy called molybdenum and 3.5 million ounces of silver annually.

“Payback on this property is projected right now, based on $800 million, within three years,” says Dennis Fischer, the project site manager for Rosemont. “That’s a pretty good payback.”

At that level of production, the Rosemont mine would be the fourth largest copper mine in the country, generating 5 percent of the United States’ copper needs for every year of its projected 19-year lifespan, company officials say. If things go the company’s way, the mine could be fully operational as soon as 2011.

But the true cost exceeds any dollar figure. One state wildlife expert said the mine would render the half of the Santa Rita Mountains “virtually worthless” to many species.

ROSEMONT CRITICISMS GET LOUDER

An increasingly prominent opposition – which includes the elected leaders of four Arizona town and city councils, Pima and Santa Cruz counties, Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano and Democratic U.S. Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords – hopes to stop them.

“I really don’t see that putting a mine here would be good for anybody except for Rosemont Copper,” says Lainie Levick, a University of Arizona research hydrologist and board member of Save the Scenic Santa Ritas, an environmental group that opposes the mine. “It’s just a really bad idea. It’s a bad place for a mine.”

Rosemont’s opponents list a litany of reasons why the mine should not go forward, chief among them concerns about the project’s environmental impact and water use. Town councils from Sonoita, Patagonia and Green Valley, which sit close to the mine site, worry that increased noise and pollution will dampen tourism, a cornerstone of the regional economy. Local residents have also voiced concerns that heavy truck traffic will overburden the area’s two-lane highway and put themselves and their children at risk.

The mine will use an estimated 1.6 billion gallons of water each year from aquifers in the upper Santa Cruz basin near Green Valley. While the company has pledged to replace more water than it draws, some residents and experts fear that the area’s delicate hydrology could be badly damaged by the mine’s pumping.

“I’d like to hear about a mine that hasn’t had a leak or contaminated groundwater,” Levick says.

Company officials call environmental fears overblown, and insist that the economic benefit to the county and state from the mine far outweigh any potential negative impact.

In any case, they argue, the law is on their side.

“The law entitles us to pursue this operation and turn it into a profitable business,” Fischer says.

FOREST SERVICE HOLDS THE KEY

Whether or not Rosemont’s legal argument carries the day will fall first to officials with the U.S. Forest Service. Three-fourths of the proposed mine’s 4,400-acre footprint lies within the boundaries of Coronado National Forest, giving the Forest Service priority status in reviewing Rosemont’s proposal.

Under federal law, mining is an allowable use for Forest Service land.

“We do not have the discretion to pick and choose which legal use of the public land is presented to us, whether you’re presenting a plan for a mine, grazing or timber harvesting,” says John Able, a Coronado National Forest spokesman. “If it’s legal, we’re compelled by law to give that a consideration.”

While federal law may appear tilted in favor of Rosemont, a number of statutes could lead Forest Service officials to request major changes to the mine plan of operation, or even to deny Rosemont’s permit applications.

“Essentially, what we would have to do to totally stop that process would be to find a violation of the law, for which there would be no mitigation,” Able says. “If that were discovered, then that could theoretically stop the process.”

If they exist, major violations of the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act or the Endangered Species Act could all spell trouble for the project.

Rosemont, however, appears to have anticipated that environmental factors could derail the mine, and their plan of operations devotes significant attention to addressing concerns about air and water quality and impacts on wildlife. Company officials say they will employ sophisticated dust-control management techniques and water recycling to mitigate air and water pollution.

Several threatened or endangered species, such as the lesser long-nosed bat, the Chiricahua leopard frog and the American peregrine falcon, may also inhabit the area of the mine.

Joan Scott, habitat program manager for the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s Tucson office, has argued that the mine would have a devastating and permanent impact on the area’s wildlife. In a letter dated July 8, she urged the Forest Service to reject Rosemont’s permit application.

“We believe that the project will render the northern portion of the Santa Rita Mountains virtually worthless as wildlife habitat and as a functioning ecosystem,” she wrote.

Yet the mining plan’s authors suggest that Rosemont’s reclamation efforts will largely mitigate harm to wildlife, saying, “disruption to wildlife habitat and use will be minimal.”

Their plan involves launching reclamation efforts immediately after mining begins, instead of waiting until after mine operations are done. The restoration work would involve the contouring and re-vegetation of waste rock and tailings.

The plan of operations also addresses acid rock drainage, in which acid-bearing rock leaches harmful chemicals into streams and watersheds. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that acid rock drainage has contributed to the despoliation of 40 percent of U.S. headwaters.

Company officials say a high concentration of limestone naturally present on-site will act as a buffer against acid-generating rock.

“The chance of [acid] migrating through the waste rock would be small or minimal,” says Kathy Arnold, director of environmental and regulatory affairs for Rosemont.

COMPENSATION ISSUE LINGERS

Trouble for Rosemont also looms in the form of legislation introduced into the U.S. Congress by Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Tucson, chair of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands. The bill would withdraw Coronado National Forest lands in Pima and Santa Cruz counties from mining and mining-related activities, including those lands sought by Rosemont.

The law, if passed, could effectively stop the Rosemont mine, but at a cost: The withdrawal of lands from mining purposes requires claimholders be compensated for their losses. Compensation could either be arrived at through private negotiation or through the courts.

Rosemont would likely demand a huge settlement to recoup their multi-million dollar investment in the property, says Nyal Niemuth, chief mining engineer with the Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources. “As they invest more and more capital, it’s more and more valuable to them.”

U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, whose district includes the project area, is a co-sponsor of the bill. She addressed the compensation issue in a September 2007 statement.

“For such a route to be feasible, non-federal funding would almost certainly be necessary in order for the legislation to garner widespread support in Congress,” she wrote. “There is no legislative silver bullet to address the issue of existing, valid mining claims, including Rosemont.

= = =

>>Email the editor at klaw@zoniereport.com.

West Fork offers refuge from ‘touristy’ Sedona

ALONG THE WEST FORK TRAIL — “I’m not sure why I came to Sedona,” remarks Janet Hamilton, a massage therapist visiting from Manhattan.

Hamilton has just joined me in a sandstone alcove located along the clear waters of the West Fork of Oak Creek Canyon, where we’ve both stopped to take a rest. “It’s too touristy for me,” she says.

The irony of Hamilton’s comment seems to escape her, seeing as how she’s a tourist herself. But we both agree that things are nicer out here away from the shops and restaurants. Sedona epitomizes all Western communities that are fated to be both beautiful and endowed with an agreeable climate: commercialized and populated to the point where the very qualities of space, quiet, and freedom to explore, which so captivated everyone in the first place, have largely disappeared, exchanged without apology for a grid of exorbitant real estate.

It’s the way of the West. In Arizona you don’t have to stick around long to see gorgeous desert transformed into parking lots. But Sedona is also the place where the Colorado Plateau’s southern edge drops in a dramatic escarpment of sedimentary rock called the Mogollon Rim, a convoluted terrain riddled with rough canyons and high, forested mesas that lay well outside the reach of development. One of the best known canyons is West Fork, a tributary to Oak Creek Canyon, where I have come not only to experience the land but also to push beyond the well-beaten trail leading into this canyon.

---

---

INTERACTIVES

---

---

West Fork is the most popular trail in the Sedona area with its easy hiking, cool running stream and beauty. The Sedona tourism industry directs so many visitors to West Fork by encouraging sightseers to hike the gentle 3.5-mile trail from the Call O’ The Canyon parking lot ($8 to park). It’s not unusual for the place to be filled with hundreds of people on a summertime weekend.

Although gorgeous and even tranquil in those 3.5 miles, West Fork continues nine more intriguing miles past the trail’s end, deeper into the officially designated Red Rocks-Secret Mountain Wilderness, where people tend to be fewer and the wilderness more truly wild.

A pool that stretches from wall to wall at the 3.5-mile mark signals the gateway to this upper stretch of canyon. The prospect of getting wet is enough to convince the majority of hikers to turn back at this point and head for home. But for the more adventurous, this is where the hike really starts.

The water is a perfect temperature, and hardly ever more than two feet deep. After the trail disappears, it’s usually easiest to walk in the creek instead of bushwhacking along the banks. Minnows and small fish dart from your footsteps as you slosh along.

The same red and white sandstones that make Sedona so attractive also form the 1,500-foot walls of West Fork. As I head past the wading pool and round a few turns in the canyon, the cliffs make for a continuously shifting array of spectacular erosional forms – buttes, spires, alcoves, walls streaked with desert varnish, petrified sand dunes – all of which support a forest of cliff-bound ponderosas and Douglas firs. It makes it hard to keep your eyes on your feet, which you’ll need to do to avoid slippery rocks.

Every so often a wet-smelling, cool breeze flows downstream. Although it’s warm enough in August to take an afternoon dip in the creek, you’ll never feel like you’re getting sun-blasted in this part of West Fork. In many places, the namesake oaks and other deciduous trees overhang the creek, and in other places, arching “waves” of sandstone loom over the running water to provide a shady avenue for travel.

While taking a break at a bend in the canyon, I enjoy the relative quiet afforded by the lack of people. Canyon wrens sing from unseen perches, scrub jays squawk in their harsh voices, and flowing water gurgles nearby. A spring beside the creek fills my water bottle with sweet, pure water and I drink deeply, soaking in the pleasures of solitude beneath the majestic, towering canyon walls.

Side canyons appear occasionally, some of which invite exploration. In any given year, more black bears and mountain lions see these minor tributaries than people. However, I stick to the main canyon, where wildflowers and ferns and mosses sprout from the sandstone along the creek.

When I’ve had enough of walking, I choose a pleasant alcove to spend two nights. Few others venture here, but those who I do are like Janet Hamilton: like-minded folks who are relieved to know there is still a place near a “touristy” town like Sedona where nature retains its potent magic.

HOW TO GET THERE

Driving directions: From the junction of Arizona 179 and 89A in Sedona, drive north on Arizona 89A for 10.3 miles, then turn west into the Call of the Canyon day use area.

Facilities: Restroom. The day use area is open from 8 a.m. to dusk.

Cost: $8 per vehicle. Red Rock Parking Passes are not accepted here, nor are national park passes.

Length: 6.8-mile round trip to the end of the designated trail and back, 24 miles if hiking to the very upper end of the canyon and back. Camping is allowed, but only 6 miles beyond the parking lot.

Note: Take hiking shoes that you can get wet. Dogs are allowed but must be leashed.

= = =

>>Email the editor at aklaw@zoniereport.com.

Insurer contests payouts for fatal Prescott plane crash

PRESCOTT — The families of three men who died while flying over Prescott should not be compensated because the flight was not part of the Prescott Air Show in 2006.

That’s the claim from Houston-based U.S. Specialty Insurance Corp., which signed a deal with air show organizers to cover accidental injuries, deaths and property damages associated with the Sept. 30 event.

Two weeks after the air show and the contract ended, event organizers were doing test flights with a MiG, a Russian fighter plane. Pilot Robert E. Ray agreed to fly the plane in exchange for in-air pictures of the MiG, the complaint states.

But due to mechanical problems, the MiG was grounded for repairs. In the meantime, air show organizers asked a second pilot, William S. Friedman, to fly a small Piper with four passengers in formation with the MiG to take the photos.

When the MiG eventually took off, Ray noticed the landing gear wouldn’t fold up and asked Friedman to fly over for a visual inspection. When Friedman zoomed in for a closer look, his Cheyenne III got caught in the jet’s exhaust. He lost control and crashed, killing everyone on board.

A wrongful death suit was filed, and the families sought compensation under the air show’s insurance contract.

The insurance company is now contesting that in federal court in Tucson. Its lawyers claim that because the air show was over when the crash occurred, the coverage didn’t apply. The people involved were no longer affiliated with the air show, the complaint states, and the contract had expired.

Phoenix lawyers Timothy Hyland and Connie Gould are representing U.S. Specialty Insurance Company.