Residents urge county to reserve right to file more NEPA comments on Jaramosa mine, cite water, traffic and air risks

Public commenters at the June 17 Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors meeting urged the county to preserve its ability to submit additional responses during the federal NEPA review of the proposed Jaramosa Critical Minerals Project and flagged what they described as gaps in the project’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).

Carolyn Schaffer, mission coordinator for Patagonia Area Resource Alliance, told the board that PARRA and a coordinated team of experts “reserve the right to submit additional comments as the NEPA and agency review process continues” and urged the county to include that sentence in any county comment letter. She said PARRA is coordinating about two dozen experts from 16 organizations on issues including water, soils, biodiversity, air, roads, public health and cultural resources.

Jay Thompson, a 20‑year Rio Rico resident with the Calabasas Alliance, told supervisors the DEIS lacks a regional impact plan. He listed concerns the county should press in any final EIS: realistic traffic and emergency‑response assessments for heavy haul trucks, a transparent long‑term water‑monitoring and reporting plan, and specific protections for tourism and trail users affected by increased truck traffic on two‑lane roads.

Robin Lucky, president of the Calabasas Alliance, told the board the county’s draft response omits a single sentence she said is critical: “We reserve the right to submit additional comments as the NEPA and agency review process continues.” Lucky cited Arizona Department of Water Resources materials and said, as reported to the board, that the region would have “25 years of groundwater left without the dewatering of the mine.” She also said a nearby private well reported a 16‑foot drop in a year.

Vanessa Register asked the board to require a permanent, real‑time air quality monitoring network that includes access‑roads and junctions such as where dirt roads meet Highway 82. She recommended that fugitive dust controls be mandatory rather than conditional and said the DEIS language about halting operations at winds “exceed[ing] 25 miles an hour” should instead require stopping operations when gusts are sustained at that threshold. Register also questioned relying solely on ADEQ permits and said the EPA had requested missing information from the mine’s application.

John Nordstrom, a property owner who said he has degrees in geology, questioned the proposed infiltration‑basin approach for treated mine water, saying a basalt dike and high iron content on his property produce a viscous sediment that “probably will not work because of that goo.” He urged the board and the company to consider returning water to natural drainage channels and described a USGS‑documented rock‑wall recharge approach used elsewhere.

Sean Doan, who spoke later in the public‑comment period, warned that dewatering at the headwaters could reduce flow in the Santa Cruz River and urged the board to press for stronger protections.

No formal board action on the DEIS was recorded during the meeting. Several speakers asked the county to 1) add the reservation‑of‑rights sentence to county comments to the Coronado National Forest or other reviewing agencies; 2) request an enforceable, public water‑monitoring and reporting plan; 3) require a regional traffic/emergency‑response plan for peak haul schedules and touristic corridors; and 4) require permanent, roadside air monitors and stricter dust‑control triggers.

Board members acknowledged receipt of submitted materials and said they would review public comment letters and the technical input provided. The transcript does not show the board adopting new language or voting on an official county comment on the DEIS during this meeting.