History of County Efforts Regarding Davidson Canyon & Proposed Mining Impacts http://pima.gov/Mining/default.html
12/31/08
Pima County Supervisor Ray Carroll's Letter to the Army Corps Of Engineers
'Stopping the Rape Of Davidson Canyon'
http://www.empirefagan.org/downloads/carroll_letter_rape.pdf
12/28/08
US-permit decision could slow limestone- quarry plan
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/fromcomments/273557.php
Army Corps of Engineering Letter
12/3/08
Published: 12.03.2008
County OKs key permit for quarry in riparian area
2 more needed for Davidson Canyon limestone project; concerns rejected
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
Pima County has issued a key permit to a proposed limestone quarry along Davidson Canyon, despite the county staff's long list of concerns about the project's environmental effects.
The decision frustrates opponents of the quarry living in the area and the county supervisor who represents it. California Portland Cement now needs two other permits to start excavating limestone from state-owned land on both sides of the canyon — southeast of Tucson not far from the Sonoita Highway — one of the county's most prized riparian areas.
County officials concluded they had no choice but to issue the permit. It allows the company to build a haul road through the canyon's flood plain for trucks to take limestone out.
California Portland Cement hopes to start work in 30 to 60 days on pre-mining operations, such as building fences and cattle guards, if it gets the permits it needs by then, company officials said in a statement.
It also needs permission from the Army Corps of Engineers for work affecting the wash, and from the Bureau of Land Management for an area where BLM owns underground mineral rights.
County officials say they're hamstrung because state law exempts counties from regulating mining. Also, the company has met or will meet federal requirements under the U.S. Clean Water Act, County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry wrote in a memo.
"As you can see, we have not been very effective in this matter for a variety of reasons, the foremost of which is the lack of legislative authority and the State Land Department," Huckelberry wrote County Supervisor Ray Carroll last week.
Opponents living in the Davidson Canyon area said Huckelberry's memo is off base because it based its claim about the mine meeting federal permitting requirements on a letter from the company.
Carroll, who represents the area, said Huckelberry's statements contradict an earlier staff memo on the mine — a claim Huckelberry strongly denies. That 2007 memo said the mine could contaminate groundwater, deter large mammals from using key habitat and cause traffic problems.
The permit, quietly issued by Huckelberry in July, came to light in November because of Carroll's concerns. In August, Huckelberry wrote a memo to the Board of Supervisors saying, erroneously, that the county "will be issuing" the permit. In response to questions about the mine last month from Carroll, Huckelberry gave the correct date for issuing the permit.
Project opponents say Huckelberry was wrong to say that the mining company will meet all federal Clean Water Act obligations. The Army Corps of Engineers has not yet made a decision on that point.
"Shouldn't the Pima County Board of Supervisors defer to their own legal counsel, not California Portland's attorney?" said Kim Rego, a quarry opponent who lives in the Vail area not far from the site.
But all an applicant really needs for a county flood-plain permit is that it meet the local flood-plain ordinance, Huckelberry said this week.
The company's plan calls for grading 12,000 square feet — 2,000 square feet less than the minimum required for the county to be able to force a developer to take steps to offset the effects of the quarry.
The quarries and haul roads will cause ground disturbance to 61.73 acres, Huckelberry wrote in his August memo. But only a fraction of that disturbance falls under the regulatory arm of local, state and federal agencies, he wrote.
In a memo to Huckelberry, Carroll pointed to concerns other county staffers raised about the quarry in April 2007:
● Groundwater lies 5 feet underground in two wells and 50 to 110 feet in two others within a mile of the site, making contamination "highly likely."
● Davidson Canyon Wash is an important riparian area with a wildlife corridor connecting the Empire, Santa Rita and Rincon mountain ranges.
● The quarry plan lacks details on how to offset effects and grossly understates economic and environmental impacts.
● The quarry lies on a key area containing habitat for vulnerable species as outlined in the county's Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, and mining wouldn't fit in with the plan's goals there.
● The nearby road that connects the canyon to the Sonoita Highway needs to be improved to handle up to 48 truckloads a day of cement from the mine, with up to 25 tons per load.
● Davidson includes a perennial spring with native fish that's a good site for restoration of lowland leopard frog habitat.
The memo recommended "denial of the proposed permit" and made no reference to any permit besides the flood-plain permit.
But the author, County Planning Director Arlan Colton, said this week that the memo was written about a separate permit being considered by BLM, not the county permit. The BLM permit would be for a mining reclamation plan that covered a much broader area, said Suzanne Shields, director of the County Regional Flood Control District.
Company officials said their Davidson Canyon crossing will largely be an expansion of an existing crossing, and that disturbance will be temporary because the area will be restored to its original condition once the quarrying is finished. The crossing will be identical to six other road crossings located within three miles on either side, the company said.
A hydrology study by the company found that its operation will have no effects on water quality because water will not be pumped from the site and there will be no processing or chemical leaching in that area.
But Carroll criticized Huckelberry for OK'ing the permit without consulting with the Board of Supervisors.
"This is a very touchy subject. It would have been nice to be made aware of it prior to its approval," said Carroll, a long-time adversary of Huckelberry.
Huckelberry said flood-plain permits are an administrative process that doesn't require board approval. The county issues more than 1,000 such permits annually, Shields said.
"The more important question is that this highlights the need for state trust reform for mineral leasing," Huckelberry said. "If Ray is as concerned as I am, he should ask new state Sen. (Jonathan) Paton to give counties more authority, because we frankly have no authority at all."
● Contact reporter Tony Davis at 806-7746 or tdavis@azstarnet.com
Please let us know which issue / area you would like your generous donation earmarked for. Your info credit card info is secure through PayPal. We are not a 501c3. Thank You.
Contact: info@azhighway83.com
