HikeArizona.COM

For those following what's shaping up for the Santa Ritas by way of the mining operation that wants to come to town, the Forest Service is planning on preparing an Environmental Impact Statement and wants your input. The project notice of intent is available on the FS website and I've also attached it to this posting:
I can't make any of the meetings, but I wish I could because we need as many people like us there as possible to show that opposition to the mine will not pass away with the contingent of retired folks in Green Valley that are championing the cause. No offense meant in what I just said, because I've heard that their new strategy is to wait a few more years until the "Political climate might be more favorable" (What else could they mean by that statement?) I know this is a heated topic, and I'm not advocating bad behavior or fanaticism; I just think we are a community that needs to be heard on these issues, once in a while...

Anyway, for those who can get out there, here's the meeting schedule:
1. March 18, 2008, Pima Community College Desert Vista Campus, 5901 South Calle Santa Cruz, Tucson, Arizona. 7:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.
2. March 19, 2008, Canoa Hills Recreation Center, 3660 South Camino del Sol, Green Valley, Arizona, 6:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.
3. March 20, 2008, Patagonia Union High School, Highway 82, Patagonia, Arizona, 6:00 p.m.- 8:00 p.m

The FS is planning another meeting for the Vail area; date, time, and location TBD. If you can't make it please take a few minutes and do like I did - send your comments on the proposal in by one of these channels:
• Mail comments to Team Leader, Rosemont Copper Project, Coronado National Forest, 300 W. Congress St., Tucson, Arizona 85701
• FAX comments to (520) 388–8305, ATTN: Rosemont Team Leader
• Or email to comments-southwestern-coronado@fs.fed.us

If you feel the mine is a good idea and have come up with a novel solution to the groundwater issue (among other things) you should comment, as well. This is a democracy, after all!

azbackpackr wrote:It won't! Your linked hikes were all in the s. end. So that was factual.

many of his quoted hikes are on the north end of the range, i've hiked them all several times. the mine will suck. based on where you say, Florida/Cave/Gardner and the AZT seem to be in the vicinity no?

There is a petition you can sign, I just did. Look for it by googling Rosemont Mine Santa Rita Mountains. There is some info on a website devoted to stopping that and another one called the Patagonia Mine, which I hadn't heard of. The Rosemont mine is to be over a mile across, and then it also must have room for tailings piles and leaching ponds and infrastructure. It will be huge.

The mine will suck, but you won't be able to see it from any (or most) of those trails listed above. That is all I meant--I was only trying to be accurate. There are no trails on his list in the far northern Santa Ritas, I beg to differ! The most northerly one is Florida Trail, I think, and it is in the main body of the mtn. range. Then the range stretches north-northeast from there for about 8 or 10 miles, forming a steep ridge. There are no trails that I know of along that ridge, but the AZT does head north from Kentucky Camp, below the level of the ridge, on the east side of the ridge, roughly paralleling Hwy 83, so that is what I'm wondering about. I don't know if it crosses 83 at some point. Anyone else know the answer to that?

I have two guidebooks to the Santa Ritas. The one that has details about this area is way out of print, but maybe you can find it used. It is Hiking Guide to the Santa Ritas by Bob and Dotty Martin. Bob Martin passed away several months ago. He wrote guides to Arizona's mtns and also to Colorado 14ers, etc. Great guy. Very old, hiked his whole life, was into his 80s when he passed on. His book has a lot of peaks and off-trail hikes in that northern end of the range, so I do recommend the book if you can find it. The other book is the one by Betty Leavengood. It is also out of print. Her book is really nice for history and stuff.

If you think that they won't be negatively affected, then I am confused as to why. This mine will wreak havoc on the entire ecosystem down there. I'm looking at the map right now and it will directly affect some of the trails, as well. We can agree to disagree.

What is important is general outrage at the plan, trails or no!! ;)

Well, it will degrade the area further, that is the truth. The area is already degraded a great deal, and does not need to be further impacted. In this I am speaking of the general area around Green Valley, the northern ridge of the Santa Ritas, the main Santa Ritas, etc. There are already several huge pit mines on the west side of I-19. Then there is the 100+ year history of cattle grazing, which has caused a lot of erosion and destruction of plant life and riparian areas. Then there is the continuing development of homes all around that area, to the north, to the west, to the south, etc. (Not sure about to the east.) The water situation, whether it would directly impact, let's say, the Old Baldy Trail--this is doubtful. But it will impact on a large amount of water: Ground water, wells, creeks, water used by cattle ranchers, etc, that are downstream of this mine. It will poison the water, and poison the area around the mines. It will create a dust cloud, adding particulate matter into the already smoggy air.

What I was trying to get at as far as the trails on the list, was that people should go over to the other side of the range and see the actual place where the mine will be. That area itself is very pretty. It is not going to be seen from Madera Canyon. They will have to drive east on I-10 and go south on 83 to see it. It will be too easy for people who are in FAVOR of the mine to say it won't impact those trails, because you can't see the mine from most of those trails, right? So that is what they are going to say. So you'll be prepared, because I have already said it. You need to look at the exact, specific area, Rosemont, and say why that specific area should not have a mine. Otherwise you will be shot down at a public meeting, see what I mean? There is great hiking in that area, but it is off-trail. It is peakbagger stuff.

I would also think that ATV and Jeep club people would be on our side on this. They must be out there riding all over on those dirt roads that are everywhere all around that area. I don't think they would like a mine there, either. Hunters, too, they might be against it. Habitat destruction. So many areas around Tucson used to be good for hunting when I first moved there, but by the time I left there were a lot of areas no longer good for hunting. Ranchers, too, there must still be some grazing leases left around there. There must be some kind of possibility of a coalition of these different groups.

now i see your point..and it's a good one

I think we're aiming for the same thing. An example of what they have in mind can be seen in the old Papago Mine Complex. The entire native ecosystem within a ten-mile radius around the borders of that thing is wiped out.

How about I just say: "The outdoor experience on the trails linked to this topic will not be the same after this mine as it it today?" I think we can all agree on that. It was really all I meant in the beginning. People need to understand the broader impacts of something of this scale. A lot of folks at the FS meetings were saying things like: "Oh, it's down there...well, that's no big deal...right??" They need to know that it *is* a big deal. ;)

Thank you for redrawing attention to the topic, BTW! :thanx:

I posted a thread about it with link to the petition over on that other popular website as well. So hopefully maybe some renewed interest can be engendered. How about also a search of websites of Tucson 4X4 clubs, etc? I wonder if they have thought to address the issue. Some groups really don't like to get embroiled in politics.

There was something about it a while ago on Riding AZ, but I think it fizzled out pretty fast...

I helped build the AZT in that area and from a Google Earth picture simulation that I saw, the mine will be visible from the top of the ridge at Oak Tree Canyon through the Rosemont Jct. area north to Hidden Valley Ranch. A definite eyesore in an otherwise gorgeous area of rolling hills with tall grasses, junipers and oaks. Not as popular as Madera Cyn, but the views from the Oak Tree Canyon ridgetop where the trail crosses (about a mile from HWY 83) is one of my favorite spots on the whole AZT.

Thanks, Sirena, I was hoping you'd find this thread and post on it.

Sirena, could you post how to find the Google Earth simulation you referred to? I know a lot of people who live in the area who would love to see it. They're all pretty upset about this proposal

perhaps google hiltonroad rosemont skytruth

azbackpackr wrote:Well, to the extent that any so-called "progress" does affect natural areas, yes. If I'm not mistaken, I recall you can see at least two large open-pit mines from the top of Mt. Wrightson. So this will be one more. No, I'm not happy about it at all. All I meant was to say if you are hiking up Temporal Gulch Trail you are not going to notice a new mine very much.

This brings me back to the topic of Oak Flat. The new mine there is supposed to be underground, yet they want to close that whole area. The entire area along Hwy. 60 between Miami and Superior is already honeycombed with underground tunnels, which you are driving over without even knowing they exist.

I'm wondering if this is the new mine that's in the news today? Here are a few snippets of the azcentral article:

Bill revives land swap for copper mine
Erin Kelly and Dan Nowicki - May. 21, 2009 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

WASHINGTON - U.S. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, D-Ariz., introduced legislation Wednesday that throws her support behind a controversial underground copper mine near Superior that developers say could turn into the largest source of copper ore in North America.

Kirkpatrick's bill could herald the long-awaited breakthrough for a federal land swap that is critical to the development of the mine. The proposed land exchange stalled two years ago, after her predecessor, Rep. Rick Renzi, was engulfed in a public-corruption scandal. Renzi is accused of trying to pressure Resolution Copper Co., the project's developers, to buy unrelated property from his former business partner in exchange for his help on the deal. ...

The federal land is thought to contain the world's largest undeveloped deposit of high-grade copper, worth billions of dollars even at today's depressed prices. Lawmakers must vote on the project because Resolution is seeking to gain control of the 3,000-acre site in Tonto National Forest.

In turn, the developers would give up more than 4,500 acres of environmentally sensitive land throughout Arizona.

Superior is up north from us. There are quite a few controversial mining projects planned int eh state right now, unfortunately.

And yes, that is the Oak Flat area. That is the great rock climbing and canyoneering area. It is also a very beautiful area. Take a drive between Globe and Superior and check it out.

US delays report on Rosemont mine plan
Agency cites complex issues; firm frustrated by slow pace
By Tony Davis
Arizona Daily Star
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 10.20.2009

The U.S. Forest Service won't meet its November deadline for releasing an environmental document about the proposed Rosemont Mine, and officials said on Monday that they don't know when the report will be released.
The delay, based on the project's complex issues, comes after months of emotionally charged controversy over the $900 million mine proposed for the Santa Rita Mountains about 30 miles southeast of Tucson. The proposal has generated a raft of critical statements written by officials from various agencies reviewing alternatives for the mine. If approved, it would become the third- or fourth-largest copper mine in the United States. The document's release has been delayed once previously from the original March 2009 release date.
Any delay has to be at least a mild setback for the Rosemont Copper Co. It has pointed to the federal government's schedule for the Rosemont project in literature being used to raise capital to build it. However, service officials said on Monday they don't know if the July 2010 scheduled date for making a decision on the project will be delayed.
Rosemont Vice President Jamie Sturgess said he doesn't know if this delay will affect the company's financing efforts. Few observers were surprised by the delay, given the increased buildup of issues about the project.
"I'm frustrated by the slow process, but it doesn't mean I'm troubled by it," said Sturgess, the company's vice president for sustainable development. "There are no shortcuts to complex issues. We've got additional technical studies we've been asked to provide, and there's a pretty comprehensive list of information the service is grappling with. It's to everyone's benefit to have the study be thorough and comprehensive."
The delay is positive because it will produce a more-detailed review and because it will cost Rosemont more time and money, said Gayle Hartmann, president of Save the Scenic Santa Ritas, an activist group opposing Rosemont.
"We didn't think they could possibly get it together. This is a very complicated (environmental impact statement), and the county had asked for a lot of information that hadn't been supplied," said Hartmann.
The fiercest criticism among reviewing agencies has by far come from Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckel-berry, who has, among other things, called for a review of the validity of Rosemont Copper's mining claims on the project.
Huckelberry also has suggested replacing the proposed Rosemont open pit mine with an underground mine that would end up tunneling the mine wastes through the mountains and shipping them by rail across a swath of land south of Tucson to the existing Twin Buttes mining complex near Green Valley. He has attacked Rosemont's public mailings on the mine. He has raised concerns that the open pit could capture runoff that otherwise would flow to neighboring canyons such as the now-relatively pristine Davidson Canyon.
In a letter to the Forest Service in July, Huckelberry accused its officials of short-circuiting deliberations on the Rosemont project in a rush to judgment. The various studies being conducted for the project aren't being done in time to help officials develop a full analysis of alternatives for the mining project, the administrator wrote the service at the end of August. The heart of the Rosemont controversy is the idea that public lands are being used as a dumping ground for mine wastes, he wrote.
On Monday, service officials said they're taking a hard look at ideas raised by the public and agencies, and haven't ruled out any of them, including Huckelberry's rail line idea.
Coronado National Forest Supervisor Jeanine Derby denied, however, that the environmental document is being delayed indefinitely, because that suggests the service doesn't have a schedule for the environmental review. Derby said that isn't true.
"This is a very complex project. It's requiring data collection, surveys and such longer in coming than we anticipated," said Mindy Roth, a special assistant to Derby on Rosemont. "As we work through the analysis process, sometimes those data needs are not identified upfront. We identify them as we're going along, and sometimes these things can't be anticipated a year, or a year and a half, in advance as you're putting the initial schedules together."
The service has put together a team of 15 to 20 scientists and others from various disciplines to study the Rosemont plan.
"This is a new type of project for many of the Forest Service employees involved," Roth said. "We have a lot of learning about the mining industry and techniques to do, to be able to do a complete and adequate evaluation of the proposal and other alternatives."
The Tohono O'Odham Nation, the Arizona Game and Fish Department, the town of Sahuarita and the Arizona Department of Water Resources have also raised questions or concerns about the Rosemont proposal to remove 220 million pounds of copper a year for the next 20 years from a site west of Arizona 83 in the Santa Ritas.
The tribe wrote that various alternatives under study for storing waste rock and tailings at the site are unacceptable, given the area's significant cultural resources. The Tohono O'Odham believe the various artifacts should be protected as part of a Santa Rita Mountains Traditional Cultural Place.
Game and Fish expressed concern the Forest Service appears likely to dismiss some alternative proposals because they are "cost prohibitive," but said any issues must also be evaluated based on the costs to the public.
For instance, the idea of shipping wastes off public lands appears technically feasible but costs too much in the eyes of some, but the savings obtained by the company by placing wastes on public lands are directly transferred to the American public in environmental costs, Game and Fish said.
Sturgess described the idea of shipping mine wastes to Twin Buttes as "the kind of alternative best described as fantasy. We don't have any interest in the Twin Buttes property. We don't own it." As for the underground mine idea, "we believe that the most economically feasible way to develop the 50 million tons of ore we've got is through a modern open pit."

Thanks for the update, Jeff. I still get the heebies when I think about the ramifications of this project.

I have signed petitions (which I normally don't do) joined the Sierra Club (which I had avoided doing for years), and have sent stuff out to lots of people to make them aware of it. Not sure what I can do given my limited time and resources. I am dead set against this mine and the other one, too. We should be mining our landfills, not our landscapes.

"we believe that the most economically feasible way to develop the 50 million tons of ore we've got is through a modern open pit."

Yeah, an open pit mine...how scenic.