ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥

A federal agency that’s raised sharp and at times blistering criticisms of the proposed $1.5 billion Rosemont Mine is keeping its views close to the vest as decision time approaches for the long-delayed project.

In a recent interview, a top Environmental Protection Agency official gave no clues as to whether the EPA would refer the project for a higher-level review before the U.S. Forest Service makes its final decision on the mine, proposed for the Santa Rita Mountains southeast of ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥.

EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld also wouldn’t say if it would consider vetoing a second permit for the project — if the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers decides to issue that one.

The prospect of a Rosemont decision looms large now because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service last week turned over to the Forest Service its Final Biological Opinion on the project’s impacts on 11 endangered and threatened species. That’s the last major report before the Forest Service issues a decision on a project that was proposed in 2007.

The Forest Service has declined to say when it will make a decision although EPA has predicted one bb mid-May. Once the Forest Service decides, the Corps has said it will make its decision.

Blumenfeld’s recent near-silence on Rosemont is a world apart not just from the EPA’s history of critical comments on it, but from the agency’s July 2014 proposal to severely restrict waste discharges from the planned Pebble Mine on Alaska’s Bristol Bay. That proposal came before the mining company had even applied for a federal permit to build the project.

Patrick Parenteau, a Vermont law professor who has followed the EPA’s activities closely, said Tuesday that he believes the agency is hesitant to speak on Rosemont today because it got “burned� by political criticism and legal action regarding another Pebble. The EPA discounted that theory in a statement, however, saying “the EPA reviews every project subject to the National Environmental Policy Act consistent with the rules and guidance.�

Blumenfeld also declined in his interview this month to say if the EPA has learned any new information that could conceivably affect its views on Rosemont. It has drawn strong support from the business community in ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ because it would create 450 permanent jobs and generate additional “spinoffâ€� economic benefits. It’s drawn strong opposition from environmental and community groups who fear its impacts on air, water supplies, water quality, species and wildlife habitat.

“We’re at a place where other agencies have a responsibility to go through and make their decisions,� said Blumenfeld, who steps down from his job May 6. “Prejudging is actually not useful for EPA. We we want to make sure we do our regulatory job and make sure other regulatory agencies do theirs. Until there is a decision, it’s premature for us to weigh in.�

Even making a statement that the EPA hasn’t changed its views can lead to a perception that it’s prejudging the mine, he said.

It could mean, for instance, that it has the same views as it had in early 2012 when it told the Forest Service that its draft environmental report on the mine was one of the worst ever published in the EPA’s Region 9, which includes ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥, California and Nevada, he said.

“We haven’t seen the biological opinion and we haven’t seen the 600 pages of comments that Hudbay sent in� on the biological opinion that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared on the mine, he said, referring to Hudbay Minerals Inc., which proposes to build Rosemont. “We haven’t been privy to a lot of discussions ...

“We need to wait until we see the entire body of new information. It’s irresponsible to make a statement whether what I’ve seen could change our views, since I haven’t seen the complete record. We will get to see the complete record when decisions are made.

“Based on what the Forest Service decides and the Corps decides, then we decide if we will be able to determine whether our issues have been resolved,� he said.

The EPA can, under federal regulations, refer the mine dispute to the White House Council on Environmental Quality if it concludes it is unable to resolve its differences with the Forest Service — before the service makes its decision.

The council can refer such a dispute to the president for final action. The EPA has the legal right to veto an Army Corps permit although it’s only done that 13 times since the Clean Water Act became law in the 1970s.

In the Pebble case, the EPA, after conducting what it said was a comprehensive review, proposed to restrict the discharge of mine wastes into federally regulated waters.

The EPA said that would cause the loss of 24 or more miles of spawning streams, 1,100 acres of wetlands and ponds or reduce streamflows by more than 20 percent in nine or more miles of spawning stream, said Parenteau’s account of the dispute in a newsletter published by the nonprofit Environmental Law Institute, a center-left organization.

The mining company and Alaska politicians from the governor and senators on down criticized this as an unlawful “pre-emptive veto.� Parenteau’s article noted the EPA has considerable legal authority to act before a permit is granted or even applied for. The mining company Northern Dynasty said the agency should have waited for a complete review by the Army Corps.

The mining company has also won a preliminary federal court injunction against the EPA, halting it from doing any more work on the Pebble project until the court can decide whether the EPA held illegal secret meetings with opposition groups.

“I think the agency has been burned at Pebble, not necessarily that they are at fault, by getting in front of the Corps,� said Parenteau, whose article was sympathetic to the agency’s view and who has been critical of Rosemont. “They are definitely gun-shy. They have reasons to be gun-shy. Not getting ahead of the Corps at Rosemont is smart.�

The Pebble and Rosemont mines are very different cases, Blumenfeld said. With Rosemont, “there is a permitting history that needs to reach its conclusion,� he said. “There is a lot of serious consideration going into making sure this project meets its environmental obligations.�