The Hermosa Project continued to advance on several fronts over the past month. The announcement that the Board of South32 had voted to fund the project with $2.16 billion, the public release of the Mine Plan of Operations submitted to the Forest Service, and Santa Cruz County’s hiring of Stephanie Smith, a contractor to help the County craft a legally binding Good Neighbor Agreement (GNA), all took place since the end of January. 

The approval to fund the Hermosa Project’s mining of zinc, lead and silver at the Taylor Deposit in the Patagonia mountains was released on February 14. The Hermosa Project “received Board approval of $2.16 billion in funding to develop the zinc-lead-silver deposit at its Southern Arizona project site,” according to the company’s press release, which stated that this funding represented the “largest private investment in Southern Arizona’s history.” The decision on manganese mining at the Clark Deposit was not included in this announcement. 

The company has stated that it plans to hire 80% of its workforce from residents in Santa Cruz County, where an estimated one-third of the residents are living below the poverty level. “Hermosa-related economic activity is expected to nearly double Santa Cruz County’s property tax base, providing funding for public schools, services, and community college,“ according to the press release. 

Patagonia School Superintendent Kenny Hayes, who is a member of the South32 Hermosa Workforce Development Taskforce, credited the mining company for its support of Patagonia schools. “South32 has been generous with funding projects for the school including providing funding for our CTE program and improving school safety,” he wrote to the PRT. 

Opponents, however, believe that the mining project poses a serious threat to the environment and the health and safety of residents. 

“What they are saying to us is a classic Trojan Horse,” Carolyn Shafer, chairman of the environmental activist group, Patagonia Area Resource Alliance, said. “It’s only looking at one economic factor in this project.” 

Shafer cited concerns over water and air quality, the discharge of up to 6.4 million gallons of water daily into Harshaw Creek, traffic, health, safety, and the destruction of habitat. PARA has brought legal actions against state agencies for failure to follow state statutes, failure to follow Clean Water Act regulations, and against the National Forest Service for providing exploratory drilling permits “without consideration of the cumulative impacts.”

On January 30, South32 made public their “Critical Minerals Exploration and Mine Plan of Operations,” a document submitted to the Sierra Vista Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest. Included in the 215-page document are the company’s plans for utilizing public Forest Service land to construct a 7.5-mile access road, a tailing storage facility, up to 26 drill pads for exploratory drilling, two infiltration basins, and up to six wells.

It is important to note that South32 is not obligated to provide plans for their 600 acres of privately held land where the mines and much of the infrastructure are presently being built. (The PRT has posted the Mine Plan of Operations, as well as a synopsis prepared by Kat Crockett, here.) 

On February 20, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors voted to contract with Stephanie Smith, of Tucson and Patagonia, to represent the County in crafting a “Good Neighbor Agreement” that could potentially be signed by South32. Other signatories may include the City of Nogales and the Town of Patagonia. 

A Good Neighbor Agreement (GNA) could ensure that the mining company puts safeguards in place to protect the health and safety of the residents, as well as mitigating environmental damage. Potential benefits for the signers might also be included in the agreement. Optimally, the GNA would be written so that the community parties can enforce the company’s obligations, and it should be required that the agreement be honored by any subsequent owners of the mine. 

District 3 Supervisor Bruce Bracker defended the County’s decision to hire a contractor without advertising the position and accepting applications. “Many times the county is lambasted for bringing outside people in,” he said. “Stephanie came to us highly recommended and she is a member of the local community.”

Smith’s job description includes “The coordination and execution of a framework “Good Neighbor Agreement” (GNA) between the mining operator South32 and Santa Cruz County, Arizona,” and “The coordination of Santa Cruz County’s role in the Hermosa Mine FAST-41 NEPA process pertaining to mining operator South32’s operation in Coronado National Forest.” 

“The misconception here is that the contractor will be writing the agreement herself,” Bracker said. “She will create an outline and a process that we will be engaging the community with.”

Bracker pointed out that the GNA should involve three communities, the Town of Patagonia, the County and the City of Nogales. When asked why Nogales has shown no indication that it is interested in the GNA to date, he said, “The door is open for them to come to the table to participate in this agreement.”

Objections to Smith’s hiring were raised by members of the audience at the February 20th meeting. Shafer asked the supervisors to table the appointment. As she explained in a subsequent interview with the PRT, she feels that the GNA should be put on hold. “Potential agreement negotiations with South32 for such an agreement should not occur until after the NEPA process is complete,” Shafer said. (The NEPA process, which will begin in May, requires the permitting agencies to review submitted paperwork and comments and concerns from the public to determine the environmental impact of the project.) 

“The county was moving ahead without being informed about the results of the work of the NEPA process, the NEPA comments that should inform the negotiations,” she added. “You can’t negotiate any agreement unless you know the value of our natural resources and our quality of life.” 

When asked to comment on PARA’s concerns about creating an agreement before the NEPA process had been completed, Bracker responded, “We need to get this process started.” The suggestion to wait for the NEPA process to play out “comes from a single attorney that is advising PARA. We are not sure we feel that way.” 

Patagonia town officials, however, feel that it is in the best interest of the Town to hold off on crafting a GNA. 

“I think the town is going to wait until we get through the NEPA process to be a signatory,” Town Manager Ron Robinson said. He used as an example the fact that the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality does not take into account the downstream effects of water discharged from the mine site and the potential for pollutants to contaminate the watershed. “We are slowing down the roll so we don’t get caught having to build a treatment plant,” he said.

“There’s going to be an advisory group that will be working through the NEPA process with the town and council, with watershed experts, the town engineer, and Flood and Flow Committee members,” Robinson added. “We are doing our due diligence. We’re just not being loud about it.”

Patagonia Mayor Andy Wood concurred with Robinson. “It’s a work in process,” she said. 

“Stephanie Smith is crafting whatever she’s crafting from the County perspective,” Wood said. “I can’t speak to what the County is doing. We realize the agreement is important but it is not a magic bullet. It’s a long-term effort. We felt we would have more direction after the NEPA process. We’re not rushing into something where we might regret not having adequate protections for the Town of Patagonia. We want to make sure that what’s included is appropriate language and protections that are sustainable for perhaps 60 years and beyond.”

Editor’s note: Stephanie Smith is the wife of PRT Assistant Editor Jay Babcock.