CONTACT
Mark Kimble
Communications Director
U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords
Arizona's 8th Congressional District
(520) 881-3588 or (520) 904-5876
U.S. REP. GABRIELLE GIFFORDS' CONCERNS OVER ROSEMONT REFLECTED IN NEW EPA FINDINGS
Agency determines proposed mine would endanger Southern Arizona watershed and 'resources of national importance'
TUCSON - The office of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is welcoming a determination by the Environmental Protection Agency that the proposed Rosemont copper mine would likely endanger "aquatic resources of national importance" in Southern Arizona.
The finding by the EPA underlines longstanding concerns by Giffords that the mine would degrade resources essential to Southern Arizona.
"Congresswoman Giffords has been a consistent critic of the proposal to dig a mile-wide, 3,000-foot-deep open pit mine in the Santa Rita Mountains," said Pia Carusone, Giffords' chief of staff. "This finding by the EPA confirms the congresswoman's fears that the mine would threaten irreplaceable natural resources."
In a Jan. 5 letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, concerns about the mine southeast of Tucson were raised by Alexis Strauss, director of the water division of the EPA's Region IX, which includes Arizona.
The Rosemont mine "would eliminate 38.6 acres of waters ... tributary to Davidson Canyon and Cienega Creek, both designated as 'Outstanding Waters' by the state of Arizona," Strauss wrote. Because of that designation, both the wash and the creek "must be afforded the highest level of protection," Strauss added.
If the mine is constructed as Rosemont proposes, "substantial loss and/or degradation of water quality and other aquatic ecosystem functions is likely," the letter notes. That would impact seven endangered or threatened species.
Since she took office five years ago, Giffords has expressed numerous concerns about the proposed mine. In an October 2010 op-ed published by the Green Valley News, Giffords wrote: "I am not opposed to all mines but I am opposed to this one. The environmental and societal effects to our community would be immense and irrevocable."
In the op-ed, Giffords also expressed water-related concerns about the proposed mine, writing: "Enormous new demands for precious groundwater at a time when the local water table is dropping could be catastrophic. Over 20 years, the mine owners expect to pump enough water to submerge all 26 square miles of Green Valley more than six feet deep."
Giffords noted that Rosemont has said the mine would create about 400 jobs for 20 years. In the op-ed, she wrote:
"Jobs are important and I am working hard to bring them to Southern Arizona. But put the Rosemont claims in perspective.
"Roche, a major drug research firm, recently announced it would bring 500 jobs to the Tucson area over the next five years. And Roche didn't demand that we surrender a treasured recreation area to capture those jobs.
"Rosemont's jobs would be here for 20 years then leave our children and grandchildren with a hideous pit a mile across and deep enough to swallow 2½ Empire State Buildings stacked one on top of the other.
"A popular recreation area that contributes significantly to our tourist economy would be irreparably damaged.
"Mining represents eight-tenths of 1 percent of earnings in Pima and Santa Cruz counties. Hospitality businesses related to tourism are eight times larger. If just a small percentage of the visitors who come here for our scenery and outdoor recreation are chased away by the mine, its economic impact would quickly be negated."
The mine pit would be on private [patented]land owned by Rosemont. But the company proposed processing ore and dumping waste rocks and dirt on 3,670 acres of the Coronado National Forest - a proposal that requires Forest Service approval. The Jan. 5 letter from the EPA to the Corps of Engineers is part of that process.
The Forest Service recently concluded a series of meetings required before it can issue a final environmental impact statement and make a decision on the mine. After that decision is announced, there will be a 45-day comment period. Forest Services officials have said they expect the approval process to be concluded this year.