Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mining Hermosa topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents, conservation groups press city leaders over South32’s Hermosa draft EIS and local water impacts
Summary
Public commenters and Patagonia-area conservation groups told the Nogales City Council on Aug. 6 that the Forest Service’s draft environmental impact statement for South32’s proposed Hermosa project is legally and scientifically deficient and that local wells and public health already show signs of impact.
Carolyn Schafer, a board member with the Patagonia Area Resource Alliance, told the Nogales City Council on Aug. 6 that the U.S. Forest Service’s draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for South32’s proposed Hermosa Minerals Project fails to analyze key baseline and cumulative impacts and must be reissued.
The comments came during a 40‑minute presentation and an extended public comment period focused on water, air and public‑health risks from the Hermosa proposal. ‘‘Mega‑drought is real and species extinction is real,’’ Schafer said, summarizing the alliance’s review of the DEIS.
Why it matters: The DEIS is the federal government’s primary technical record under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Schafer and a coalition of local, regional and national organizations — which she said produced a 221‑page comment package — told the council the DEIS understates or omits evidence on water availability, groundwater modeling, air emissions, biodiversity and tailings management.
Schafer said water is a central concern: ‘‘Seventy‑seven pages of our 221‑page comment are about water,’’ and she told the council the review uses inappropriate groundwater models and contains insufficient calibration data. Residents who spoke during call to the public described well problems they link to mining activity and monitoring letters they’ve received from South32.
Homeowner Susan Weddington told the council she has lacked potable water at her house for three years and described intermittent iron sludge and a recent lead detection ‘‘over 3,000% over the maximum contaminant level for drinking water.’’ Weddington said she is working with a hydrogeologist and university and state scientists and asked the council to address impacts so homeowners have recourse without litigation.
Several other residents described certified letters from South32 asking permission to monitor wells, and one resident, John Nordstrom, said he has created a community well‑monitoring website and plans to distribute low‑cost transducers to collect groundwater levels. Nordstrom also referenced a Forest Service figure he described as the project’s ‘‘cone of depression’’ and said it extends roughly 58 miles in diameter.
Schafer and other presenters named multiple federal laws and regulations they say the DEIS fails to meet, including NEPA, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Organic Act and the National Forest Management Act, and urged the council to consult with the organizations that submitted the technical comments. She said the coalition’s concerns include: - Water quantity and quality: insufficient baseline data, disputed groundwater models and calibration, and possible contamination risks. - Air quality and public health: limited screening in the DEIS, insufficient analysis of hazardous pollutants beyond manganese, and risks from deposition of dust and fine particulates. - Biodiversity and cultural resources: project overlap with a high‑value Madrean pine‑oak area and identified habitat for threatened, endangered or sensitive species. - Tailings and paste backfill: ‘‘fundamental’’ shortcomings in the tailings management plan and underestimation of failure consequences.
Council members asked questions about the public‑benefits and protections agreement under negotiation among South32, the town of Patagonia, Santa Cruz County and the city of Nogales. Schafer said that agreement is intended to be legally binding but that the forest‑scale environmental review must be corrected first.
No formal council action on disposition of the DEIS was taken at the meeting. Council members acknowledged they had received Schafer’s materials and discussed next steps for the city’s participation in ongoing negotiations and technical review, and several said they would consult the organizations she named.
Ending: City staff and councilors were urged to coordinate with the signatory organizations and county and state technical experts as the federal review proceeds. Schafer offered to provide the council the full 221‑page comment package and a 40‑page summary for local review.
