Arizona Mined Land Reclamation Plan Part 1 - Page 2

 

3.0 CURRENT OWNERSHIP AND LAND USE

The core of the Project consists of 132 patented lode claims that total an area of 1,968 acres. A contiguous group of 899 unpatented lode-mining claims that total an area of over 12,000 acres surrounds the patented load claims. Additionally, there are 14 parcels of fee land that total 911 acres. Most of the unpatented claims were staked on Federal lands that are now administered by the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and the Coronado National Forest (CNF). A limited number of claims in the northwest portion of the property are on Federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Some of the claims predate Arizona Statehood and the United States Congress’ creation of the Coronado National Forest. The area covered by the patented claims, unpatented claims, and fee lands total approximately 15,000 acres. All private land and unpatented mining claims described above are owned and/or controlled by Rosemont Copper Company, a subsidiary of Augusta Resource Corporation. Figure 2 shows the current land ownership discussed above and parcel maps are provided in Figures 3 and 4.

Current land use reflects a mixture of mining activities, ranching, wildlife habitat, and recreational use. A portion of the Arizona Trail is along the southern boundary of the Project site. In addition to the on-going exploration activities, the area is used by hikers and other outdoor enthusiasts.

The Rosemont Copper (Rosemont) property is part of the existing Rosemont Ranch, a ranching facility with over 30,000 acres of grazing lands and leases. The Project area has a mining past and many relics of these enterprises remain. In addition, evidence from archaeological surveys indicates that prehistoric sites are also present. As part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis, CNF will take the lead on consultation with tribal entities and the State Historic Preservation Office. Work will include the inventory, recovery, and preservation of historic and prehistoric sites.

3.1 Proposed Post-Mining Use of the Land

Current and proposed post-mining recreational activities include horseback riding, hunting, prospecting, all-terrain vehicle and motorcycle riding, four wheeling, hiking, and bird watching. Post-mining reclamation objectives for the Rosemont property include dispersed recreation, ranching, and wildlife habitat.

The post-mining use for this facility will include on-going ranching. Much of the top and side surfaces of the Rosemont Ridge post-mining landform will be ideal for grazing once vegetation is established.

Because Rosemont Copper is planning concurrent reclamation of the facility, it is anticipated that the establishment of wildlife habitat and wildlife use will start early in the Project life.

3.2 Description of the Mining Unit and the Proposed Surface Disturbance

In general, the Project will involve facilities and processes found at mining sites. These facilities and processes include:

• Open pit mine;
• Waste rock storage facility;
• Dry stack tailings facility;
• Heap leach facility;
• Milling facilities as well as maintenance/shops, etc.;
• Solvent extraction/electrowinning facilities, including solution ponds;
• Ancillary facilities such as offices, warehouses, and laboratories; and
• Utility corridors for water, roadways, and power.

The total project disturbance footprint of the operation including utility corridors, access roads, and buffer areas is in excess of 4,400 acres. A detailed description of the mining and beneficiation processes is contained in the Rosemont Mine Plan of Operations (MPO). A map of the facilities is included herein as Figure 3.

3.3 Existing and Proposed Final Topography

The Project is located in the northern Santa Rita Mountains at elevations ranging from 4,400 to 6,300 feet above mean sea level. Barrel Canyon is the principal drainage system for the east side of the property. Wasp, McCleary, and Scholefield Canyons discharge to Barrel Canyon, which then discharges to Davidson Canyon east of the property. The northwest side of the property is drained by a series of unnamed headwater tributaries of Sycamore Canyon. There are a number of springs within the property. Vegetative communities consist of riparian areas adjacent to some springs and major drainages, upland open woodlands or savanna, and semidesert grassland at the lower elevations.

The Project will use an innovative concurrent reclamation and closure approach to sequence material for placement within the final landform (Rosemont Ridge) throughout the life of the Project. The Project will also generate filtered tailings rather than conventional tailings with associated water reclaim facilities. This will minimize hydrologic impacts and conserve water.

An outer facility shell will be constructed in the waste rock area to reduce visual impacts of the operation. An outer shell will also be constructed in the tailings disposal areas to serve as a containment buttress and also to reduce visual impacts. As much as practicable, Rosemont Copper plans on reclaiming the site with methods that mimic natural landform terrain. As such, continuous slopes incorporating natural landform features are anticipated for the south and east facing slopes of Rosemont Ridge. Reclamation sequencing has been simulated for the life of the Project (see Rosemont Copper Project, Reclamation and Closure Plan, Tetra Tech, Inc. July 2007 [Reclamation and Closure Plan], Section 5.0, and Figures 3 through 33). A copy of this plan is included for reference as Attachment A.

3.4 Narrative Description of Proposed Roads

Access to the property will be via two routes: the primary access route from the east and a secondary access route from the west. The primary access road to the property will extend approximately 3.7 miles from State Route 83 at a point between mile markers 46 and 47 and end at the main guard shack located at the entrance to the plant facilities. The main access road will be designed for 35-mph traffic and consist of two 14-foot-wide travel lanes. The intersection of the access road and State Route 83 will be designed to Arizona Department of Transportation standards and will include turning and acceleration lanes.

A secondary access road will be located to the west over the ridge of the Santa Rita Mountains, connecting to Santa Rita Road at Helvetia Road. This west access road is considered a secondary access for plant maintenance employees accessing the fresh water pump stations and associated water pipeline, including utility company access to the electrical transmission line servicing the mine. The west access road will consist of one 11-foot wide travel lane without shoulders, similar to existing Forest Service roads.

Mine haul roads will be constructed around the north, east, and south edges of the planned ultimate pit limits. Temporary haul roads will be constructed internal to the ultimate pit limits as necessary to provide access to all working faces in the open pit mine, with connections to the primary crusher, oxide leach pad, and waste rock storage areas located to the southeast, east, and northeast of the pit. Haul roads will generally be 120 to 130 feet wide, inclusive of safety berms, and will support the traffic of 250- to 360-ton off-highway mine haulage trucks. In-plant roads will generally measure 24 feet wide and will extend from the plant entrance around the perimeter of the process facilities and along the crushed ore conveyor to the mine shop, as well remote facilities such as outlying tanks.

3.5 Acreage Affected by Each Type of Surface Disturbance

Table 1 depicts the acreages that will be disturbed at the mine site.

Table 2: Disturbance Acreages

Affected Area	Disturbed Acres	Total Federal Land (acres)	Total State Land (acres)	Total Private Land (acres)
Plant site including access roads and ancillary facilities	570	325	75	170
Tailings / Waste Rock / Leach Facilities	2,895	2,660	0	235
Mine (including associated access roads)	950	360	0	590
Total	4,415	3,330	75	875

 

Tables 2 and 3, found in Sections 10.0 and 11.0, respectively, of this document, do not address unreclaimed portions of the open pit (approximately 815 acres) or the full width of access roads and utility corridors (approximately 219 acres). Therefore, the total area to be reclaimed will total 3,381 areas. These acres may be adjusted as required by the NEPA process.

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITATS THAT WILL BE DISTURBED

Three Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed species are considered to have the potential to be present on the site: the Huachuca water umbrel (Lilaeopsis schaffnerianea var. recurva), the Chiracahua leopard frog (Rana chiricahuensis), and the lesser long-nosed bat (LLNB) (Leptonycteris yerbabuenae). Although marginal, a few natural springs in the analysis area appeared to have some possibility of supporting Huachuca water umbel or Chiricahua leopard frog. Each of these sites was surveyed for these species, but none were found. No future surveys for Chiricahua leopard frogs or Huachuca water umbel are planned.

Numerous abandoned mine adits and shafts, including one natural cave, are located in or near the analysis area. During a screening survey, several of these features were considered to be potential roost sites for LLNB, a nectar-feeding species. A more detailed survey of these sites was conducted during the late summer dispersal period for these bats. Evidence of nectar-feeding bats (distinctive guano) was found in three adits. No LLNB were observed but another species of nectar feeding bat, the Mexican long-tongued bat (Choeronycteris mexicana), was seen in two of the adits. Each of the three adits is located on the east slope of the ridge on the west edge of the property. It is likely that two of these sites will be impacted by mine development. At this time, however, there is no conclusive evidence that the lesser long-nosed bat is present on the Rosemont Property.

In addition to ESA-listed species, six additional species, listed as Forest Service sensitive, have the potential to be present on the site: three sensitive butterfly species, the Arizona giant skipper (Agathrymus aryxna), Polings giant skipper (Agathymus polingi), and Arizona metalmark (Calephelis rawsonii arizonensis); one amphibian, the Western barking frog (Eleutherodactylus augusti cactorum); one reptile, the canyon spotted whiptail (Aspidoscelis burti); and one bird species, the American peregrine falcon (Falco pergrinus anatum).

A biological assessment will be completed for the Project to support the NEPA analysis. The results of consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service will be incorporated into the Project plan, if necessary.

5.0 MEASURES THAT WILL BE TAKEN TO RESTRICT PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE PROJECT

Access to the site will be controlled by perimeter fencing, security patrols, and by limiting locations for entering and leaving the property. Operations will be conducted around the clock and guard buildings will be located at the official entrances. Figure 5 shows the planned perimeter fence.

6.0 MEASURES THAT WILL BE TAKEN TO ADDRESS EROSION CONTROL AND STABILITY

Erosion control will be addressed by vegetative stabilization of slopes (concurrent reclamation) and operational control of stormwater. Stability of the plant site facilities, tailings, and waste rock areas has been addressed in a separate report, Geotechnical Investigation Report (Tetra Tech, 2007-available for review upon request). Call and Nicholas Inc. reviewed pit slope stabilities during the Feasibility Study phase of the Project. Additional pit slope stability work will be ongoing during the mine planning process. Vegetative stabilization is discussed in Section 7.0. A summary of operational stormwater controls follows.

6.1 Operational Stormwater Controls

During the operational phase, the open pit and plant areas will be designed as a closed system with all precipitation and local runoff collected in the Process Water Tailings Storage (PWTS) pond. The surface of the tailings area, which is fairly impervious, will be sloped so that precipitation falling on top of the active area will remain on top and evaporate. Ponded water may also be pumped to the PWTS Pond (and used in the process) to limit infiltration into the tailings mass.

During the initial years, surface water runoff generated in the waste rock storage area will be managed by using internal stormwater controls and/or by allowing stormwater runoff to infiltrate back into the waste rock pile. The southern and eastern slopes of the waste rock storage area are set back from basin divides by at least 100 feet. Runoff from these outer buttress slopes will be contained within the smaller basins located along the toe.

Sediment control facilities will be installed to reduce the total suspended solids loads to the minimum practical level for the 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Sediment ponds will be located and sized based on topography, available space, and the anticipated sediment generating capacity of the contributing basin. These unlined ponds will typically be sized to be no more than 6 to 8 feet deep to minimize settling time. Embankments will be designed to be non-jurisdictional and will be constructed out of large, porous waste rock. The ponds will be temporary structures that will collect stormwater flows, settle velocities so that the heavier wash load falls out, and allow water to slowly seep through the rockfill. As facilities progress, sediment structures may be abandoned and others constructed downstream. Both the upstream and downstream faces of the sediment pond embankments will be armored. Large storm events will be allowed to overtop the length of the pond crest.

Stormwater diversions and culverts are planned for the west side of the waste rock and tailings storage facilities to divert runoff to the Central Drain area. The North Diversion, as shown on Figures 3 though 12 of the Reclamation and Closure Plan, is planned to divert runoff from a 100-year, 24-hour storm event around the north dry stack tailings facility and plant site area. As the Central Drain is built-up, an attenuation pond will form, allowing collected surface water to slowly feed into the drain. The attenuation pond will be sized to allow a 100-year, 24-hour event to drain within 30 days.

At the end of mine life, all operational facilities associated with stormwater control not required for closure applications will be removed, the areas regraded, capped, and reseeded. Some sediment structures may be left in place or new basins established to control sediments or for establishing stock watering ponds, etc. (see Figure 23, Reclamation and Closure Plan). The PWTS pond area will be closed and graded to the Central Drain.

6.2 Pre- and Post-Mining Temporary Sediment and Erosion Controls

Temporary erosion and sediment controls will be installed to reduce sediment loading in stormwater during the pre-mining construction of the ancillary facilities and pre-stripping of the waste rock and tailings storage areas. Similarly, best management practices will be used during construction of the access roads to limit the erosion potential of the cut/fill slopes. Access roads include the primary access from State Route 83 to the plant site and various internal access roads from the plant site to the water storage tanks, the heap leach facility, and PWTS pond. A secondary access road from Santa Rita Road to the plant site is also included as part of the Project. In addition, haul roads will run from the open pit to the heap leach, dry tailings, and waste rock storage facilities. Temporary best management practices will be also installed to control erosion and sediment during demolition activities and until vegetation can be established.

7.0 MEASURES THAT WILL BE TAKEN TO ADDRESS REVEGETATION, CONSERVATION, AND CARE AND MONITORING OF REVEGETATED AREAS

Optimum revegetation success is being addressed through a plant-testing program at the University of Arizona’s School of Natural Resources. The program’s goal is to arrive at the optimal seed mixture for the Rosemont site based on greenhouse and test plot evaluation of different seed mixes in varying rainfall and soil amendment scenarios (see Section 11.0 of the Reclamation and Closure Plan). Once selected, seed mixtures and amendments will be applied to the perimeter buttress during the operational phase. Isolation of any potentially acid generating materials within the interior of the waste rock and tailings facilities, or within the leach pad, will also contribute to revegetation success. Revegetation success will be monitored and adjustments made over the life of the active operations.

Reference plots will be set up prior to operational startup to provide a baseline for diversity and density of the vegetation. A test plot will also be prepared to provide a measure of revegetation potential and reclamation expectations for that area. Measurements at these plots and ultimately the reclaimed sites will be taken using a dry weight density or other standard reference frame measurement. Revegetation success will be based on a percentage of vegetation density as compared to the reference and test plots.

Based on the Arizona Department of Transportation Final Stabilization Standards, Rosemont is proposing that the vegetation cover required for final stabilization to be considered complete is 70% of the existing native vegetation coverage. This standard will be measured against a number of revegetation plots and reference areas.

8.0 MEASURES TAKEN TO PRESERVE AND CONSERVE SOIL

In March 2007, Tetra Tech completed a soil resource assessment at the Rosemont site with the objectives of describing the soil profiles or pedons (the smallest volume of soil that contains all of the soil profiles), documenting soil characteristics including any limiting characteristics, sampling and analyzing the physical and chemical properties of representative pedons, preparing a description of the mapping units and components, evaluating the soil suitability for reclamation, and proposing suitable salvage depths (see Section 11.2 of the Reclamation and Closure Plan). The survey identified six soil pedons located in the dry tailings, waste rock storage, and operations areas that are acceptable for use in revegetation. About 4.6 million cubic yards is eligible for salvage in these areas. Topsoil will be salvaged prior to the start of construction for stockpiling until needed for reclamation. Topsoil stockpiles will be appropriately labeled. Rosemont Copper is also evaluating the revegetaton potential of some of the underlying unconsolidated, weathered bedrock.

9.0 MEASURES THAT WILL BE TAKEN TO ENCOURAGE FISH AND WILDLIFE POST-MINING LAND USE AND THEIR COMPATIBILITY WITH FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ON ADJACENT LANDS

In addition to confining the Project to a single drainage basin to limit impacts to biological and hydrological resources, a few preliminary mitigation measures have been identified. Augusta Resource Corporation/Rosemont Copper will establish the Santa Rita Mountains Regional Trust, which may receive monies over the life of the mine that can be used, in part, to acquire and provide some management funding for conservation lands identified in the Pima County Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan.

To address the two adits identified by surveys as nectar-feeding bat roosts, detailed surveys will be conducted to determine the extent of bat use and the identity of the species. If it is determined that nectar-feeding bats are using the adits, construction activities will be scheduled to avoid seasonal periods. Adits would then be sealed to prevent re-entry. It is anticipated that the NEPA process, and potentially consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, may result in the development of additional mitigation measures.

10.0 PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR RECLAMATION MEASURES

Figures 3 through 11 of the Reclamation and Closure Plan illustrate the progression of the waste rock and tailings storage facility development from pre-production to the final Rosemont Ridge Landform. Figure 19 of the Reclamation and Closure Plan shows a composite plan view of the areas reclaimed. Table 2 summarizes the anticipated acreage reclaimed per year. The reclamation costs presented in the following section were based on these same groupings.

Operational Year	Annual Area Reclaimed		Federal Lands (approx. acres)	State Lands (approx. acres)	Private Lands (approx. acres)
	Acres1	% Total2
Pre-production	0	0%	0	0	0
Year 1	162	7%	152	0	10
Year 2	187	12%	143	10	34
Year 3	185	17%	150	10	25
Year 4	130	20%	106	7	17
Year 5	159	23%	143	5	11
Years 6-10	495	31%	463	5	27
Years 11-15	435	40%	426	2	7
Years 16-19 (closure)	1,628	77%	1,439	5	184
Total Area	3,381		3,022	44	315

1 Estimated yearly reclaimed areas are for the Rosemont Ridge Landform only and exclude utility corridors, access roads, and buffer areas 2 Cumulative acres measured against the cumulative disturbed acres (including utility corridors, access roads, and buffer areas)

11.0 ESTIMATED COSTS TO PERFORM EACH OF THE PROPOSED RECLAMATION MEASURES

Cost estimations, based on newest equipment and the CAT handbook, have been prepared for presentation to the Forest Service. Two cost scenarios were developed: early closure and staged reclamation. The early closure estimate reflects the greatest disturbance area anticipated on an annual basis and at the conclusion of operations. The estimated disturbance area and associated cost for reclaiming the facilities on an annual, early closure scenario are provided in Table 3.

The staged, or final, reclamation cost estimate reflects the anticipated reclamation that will be performed on an annual basis throughout the life of the mine. This reclamation activity reflects Rosemont’s commitment to return the site to a useful standard as soon as possible. Expenditures in the early years are spent reclaiming the waste rock buttress. Table 3 also shows the estimated disturbance area and estimated cost of reclamation for this scenario.

Table 3: Reclamation Estimates for Entire Facility

Year	Cumulative Disturbed Area (acres)3	Early Closure Scenario		Staged Scenario
		Early Closure Reclamation (acres)	Cost of Reclamation ($ million)	Final Reclamation (acres)	Cost of Reclamation ($ million)
Pre-production	1,197	1,271	13.87	0	0
Year 1	1,668	1,039	15.42	162	0.83
Year 2	2,067	1,344	16.15	187	0.67
Year 3	2,370	1,572	17.30	185	0.66
Year 4	2,614	1,648	18.49	130	0.44
Year 5	2,863	2,067	19.67	159	0.63
Years 6-10	3,447	2,454	23.23	495	2.23
Years 11-15	3,547	2,569	13.09	435	1.64
Years 16-19	3,625	2,743	17.87	1,628	15.00
Post-production	0	434	3.94	0	1.60
Total	3,625			3,381	$ 23.70

The average reclamation cost per acre for the early closure scenario is just over $10,000. Similarly, the average reclamation cost per acre for the staged scenario is just over $7,000 an acre. The disturbed area as shown above includes access roads and portions in the upper level of the pit as may be reasonably reclaimed. The difference between the cumulative disturbed area and the summation of the final reclaimed area (244 acres) includes those areas that are within the disturbed area but need to be kept in an open state such as access roads, ponds, etc. As such, these areas have not been included in the reclamation cost estimate. Additional details on bond estimation and area-specific reclamation can be found in Section 13.0 of the Rosemont Reclamation and Closure Plan.

State and private lands that will be reclaimed are shown in Table 2. The acres include those areas of the pit that may be reclaimed and exclude the portions of the proposed roadways that

³ Disturbed acres do not include access roadway reclamation or areas in the pit that may not be reclaimed but do include a small buffer area that will be used for plant laydown or construction activities.

remain open. Ultimate disposition of the roadways will be decided during the NEPA process. The final record of decision (ROD) and MPO will determine the final reclamation requirement and may necessitate an adjustment of the cost.

Rosemont Copper anticipates that the reclamation financial assurance for the Project components on Forest Land will be under the purview of CNF, the lead federal agency for the NEPA analysis. Reclamation associated with the private land portion will be covered under the ASMI financial assurance requirements. A copy of the reclamation plan prepared for the NEPA analysis has been provided as an attachment to this submittal, illustrating the overall bonding calculations that were performed as part of the Mine Plan of Operations submittal.

Rosemont has separated the cost component associated with the State and Private lands shown above and has presented those in Appendix A. The estimated cost based on activities for the various areas totals approximately $3,713,000 or approximately $10,300 per acre. Table 4 presents a summary of the reclamation costs for the various periods. These costs are for the State and Private lands only.

Table 4: Reclamation Estimates for State and Private Lands

Year	Cumulative Area (acres)4	Early Closure Scenario		Staged Scenario
		Early Closure Reclamation (acres)5	Cost of Reclamation ($ thousand)	Final Reclamation (acres)	Cost of Reclamation ($ thousand)
Pre-production	1,197	125	4,078	0	0
Year 1	1,668	190	4,299	10	53
Year 2	2,067	190	4,291	11	59
Year 3	2,370	183	4,296	0	0
Year 4	2,614	228	4,388	4	9
Year 5	2,863	213	4,485	3	6
Years 6-10	3,447	338	4,806	63	570
Years 11-15	3,547	325	3,569	40	191
Years 16-19	3,625	301	4,391	228	2,339
Post-production	0	74	2,623	0	486
Total	3,625			359	$ 3,713

4 Disturbed acres do not include access roadway reclamation or areas of the pit that may not be reclaimed but do include a small buffer area that will be used for plant laydown or construction activities and include entire facility. 5 Early and final reclamation areas are for state and private lands only.

 

12.0 REFERENCES

Westland Resources, Inc. “Mine Plan of Operations.” Prepared for Augusta Resource Corporation, July 11, 2007.

Tetra Tech, “Reclamation and Closure Plan.” Prepared for Augusta Resource Corporation, July 2007.

Arizona Mined Land Reclamation Plan Part 1 - Page 3

 

11.0 REVEGETATION PLANNING AND SOIL SURVEYS

To facilitate optimal revegetation success, Augusta has begun investigation of appropriate seed mixes and soil types. This initial planning and testing will allow Augusta to determine the suitability and availability of plant materials and growth medium over the life of the Project. It will also allow the assessment of other factors affecting the revegetation plan, such as wildlife habitat requirements. The following sections provide more detail on these studies.

11.1 University of Arizona Testing Program

In April 2007, Augusta Resource signed a contract with the University of Arizona’s School of Natural Resources to perform greenhouse plant testing as well as to perform on-site test plots. The target of the Rosemont mine reclamation effort is to prevent soil loss from the site, reclaim its capacity for productive use, and return the site to a higher functioning plant community. The uplands in the prospective site of the Rosemont mine are not currently at their highest potential as a plant community. The most visible evidence of a degraded plant community is the substantial cover of Alligator or One-seed Juniper and Velvet or Honey Mesquite. These trees, while being native species, encroach upon sites that have had a lower than normal fire frequency combined with historical overgrazing by cattle. Once the canopy cover of these species gets above about 25%, soil erosion and soil loss often becomes a serious issue and the overall site becomes unstable. The proposed seed mixes should reclaim the site to a condition more like its ideal plant community.

11.1.1 Prospective Seed Mixes

Twenty-nine species (four overlapping mixes of eleven species each) were chosen for the greenhouse evaluation. All selected species are natives and represent the highest condition native plant communities across the range of conditions expected on the site. The species chosen for testing represent a range of functional types of plants including: warm-season perennial grasses, cool-season perennial grasses, annual grasses, perennial forbs (broadleaved flowering plants), annual forbs, and shrubs. This array of plants maximizes the ability to select a successful mix at the end of the greenhouse testing but also will allow the final mix to have all the components of a resilient and productive system. All species chosen for inclusion are currently available from large-scale commercial seed vendors.

11.1.2 Rainfall Scenarios

Three rainfall scenarios were chosen based on an evaluation of storm-by-storm rainfall data from two rain gauges near the site. The average scenario was an average rainfall year rather than the average daily rainfall over the 31-year period. Having a sufficiently large storm size and appropriate interval between storms is critical for plant germination and establishment. Similarly, the low rainfall scenario is a characteristic low rainfall year from center of the range encompassing the bottom 20% of total rainfall years. The high rainfall scenario is a high rainfall year from center of the range encompassing the top 20% of rainfall years. For this Project, the monsoon was considered to last from the beginning of July to the end of September or a little more than 90 days. Once the monsoon season trial is complete, the plants will not be given water again for at least two months before the start of the winter season growth period. This will mimic the normal dry period between seasons. The winter season was considered to be from the beginning of December to the end of March or a little more than 120 days.

11.1.3 Soil/Surface Amendments

The amendments chosen for evaluation are tackified straw and tackified straw combined with slow-release fertilizer. Tackified straw, straw that has been glued or tackified onto a field site, is a popular amendment for regional reclamation efforts and ameliorates some of the harsh surface conditions common to the site. The second amendment, slow-release fertilizer, will provide a temporary source of nutrients in the surface soil where the plants will be establishing.

11.1.4 Greenhouse Testing

During June 2007, approximately 5 cubic yards of three different soil types including Gila Conglomerate, Glance Limestone Conglomerate, and Willow Canyon Formation (Arkose) were delivered to the University Greenhouses near Prince and Campbell. In addition, approximately 390 pounds of tailings material derived from metallurgical testing was also delivered. Each soil type, as well as the tailings mixed with the other materials, will be used for the greenhouse pot tests. These material types were chosen to give an understanding of the growth potential for the on-site soils, etc.

11.1.5 Test Plots

In addition to the greenhouse study, on-site test plots are planned to verify the greenhouse findings. Test plots will commence on private property at the Rosemont site. This portion of the work may run concurrently with the greenhouse tests once sufficient information has been derived from the pot studies.

11.2 Soil Survey Results

In March 2007, Tetra Tech completed a soil resources assessment at the Rosemont site with the objectives of describing the soil profiles or pedons, documenting soil characteristics including any limiting characteristics, sampling and analyzing the physical and chemical properties of representative pedons, preparing a description of the mapping units and components, evaluating the soil suitability for reclamation, and proposing suitable salvage depths (Tetra Tech, 2007).

11.2.1 Suitable Soil Areas

Six soil pedon units and eight borrow depths were identified as a result of the study. The location of these soil pedon units are shown on maps provided in the soil investigation reports.

Northern Aspect – 12 inches

North aspect soils located in the southern potion of the survey area are formed from colluvium and slope wash-alluvium. The geologic parent material of this area is of the Gila Conglomerate which consists of quartz sandstone, carbonates, argillite, hornfels, granitic rock and quartz – feldspar. The average depth of suitable borrow soil is approximately twelve inches. The soils available for salvage are sandy loams with 15 to 20% gravel, 0 to 5% cobbles and between 45 and 65% surface coarse fragments. Slopes range from 20 to 45 degrees. These soils generally have moderate vegetative cover including trees, shrubs, and grasses.

Southern Aspect – 6-12 inches

South aspect soils located in the southern portion of the survey area are formed from colluvium and slope wash-alluvium. The geology of this area is also the Gila Conglomerate. These soils have approximately 6 inches of suitable soil for salvage with occasional deeper deposits in concave physiographic positions. The texture of these soils are sandy loam to coarse sandy loam with coarse fragment content on the surface ranges from 50 to 75% and coarse fragment content in the soil ranges 20 to 40% gravel and 0 to 5% cobbles. Slopes occurring in these areas range from 20 to 40 degrees. Vegetation cover is primarily forbes, cactus, and grasses.

Alluvial Wash/Fans – 24-25 inches

Alluvial washes are located in drainage bottoms throughout the Project area. These soils are deep with borrow depths ranging from 24 to 45 inches and with textures of loamy sand to sandy loams. Coarse fragment content ranges from 15 to 45% consisting primarily of small gravels. The active flood plain portions of the wash generally have insufficient fines within the profile to support vegetation. Vegetation cover varies widely depending on the orientation/position of the site.

The alluvial fans were limited in extent and were included with the alluvial wash map unit. These fans are located at the mouths of side drainages and have the deepest soil salvage potential. Vegetative cover in the fans also varies greatly depending on aspect and grazing pressure but is generally good.

Alluvial Terraces – 18 inches

Alluvial terraces are fairly limited and located in the western portion of the study area. These soils are derived from Late Pleistocene alluvial terrace material at the toe of the upper slopes of the Santa Rita Mountains. They are deep gravelly to very gravelly loams over weakly cemented very reactive extremely gravelly alluvium. The salvageable borrow ranges from 12 to 18 inches with gravel and cobble generally being the restrictive feature. Vegetative production is good and is primarily comprised of grasses.

Residual Benches – 12 inches

These map units are located in the northwestern portion of the Project area. The soils are derived from very weathered residuum of the Willow Canyon Formation. These soils are moderately deep; however, borrow depths are generally limited to one foot due to coarse fragment content and heavy clay soils. Surface coarse fragment content ranges from 30 to 50%. Near surface texture are generally clay loams grading to clays with slopes varying greatly from 5 to 40% dependent on position. Vegetative cover varies from moderate to good.

Shallow to Bedrock – <6 inches

The shallow bedrock unit is located in the center and northern portions of the Project area. The major geologic formations include the Willow Canyon, an arkosic to tuffaceous siltstone, sandstone, and conglomerate; the Apache Canyon, a shale and laminated siltstone; and the Mount Fagan Rhyolite, an ash flow tuff. Soil depths range from very shallow to 5 inches on slopes, to deep 24 inches in drainages. The soils in this area range from coarse sandy loams to clay loams. Coarse fragments within the soil are between 25 and 45% gravels and surface fragments of 40 to 60% and higher. Some isolated pockets of borrow soil may be available on a site specific basis. The limiting factor for suitable borrow soil in this area is the bedrock outcrops and shallow depth to bedrock throughout the majority of these areas. This material is the initial pedogenesis zone and is generally not considered during soil salvage determinations. However since the current vegetation cover primarily includes forbes, cactus, and grasses, this indicates that the shallow bedrock unit is actively serving as a growth media. Revegetation success has been observed within the proposed pit area where weathered bedrock material has been used for reclamation of exploration sites.

The primary physical properties limiting salvage include high clay content and high coarse fragment content. Soils on the ridge tops, especially derived from the Willow Canyon formation in the northwest Project area, have high concentrations in the subsoil that may warrant special consideration for reclamation planning. High percentages of coarse fragments are generally common throughout the Project area. The primary chemical property limiting salvage is nutrient content. Nutrient content is variable throughout the survey area.

11.2.2 Estimated Soil Salvage Areas and Volumes

The estimated soil salvage areas and volumes in the dry tailings, waste rock storage, and operations areas of the Rosemont Mine are based on the suitable soil pedons identified above. The total estimated volume of salvage soil in the prospective operational areas is approximately 4,583,000 cubic yards.

Underlying the salvageable soil throughout the site, and specifically underlying the above operational areas, is a substantial amount of unconsolidated and weathered bedrock. The volume of these areas was estimated using a minimum depth of 4 feet. The estimated volume of unconsolidated and weathered bedrock is 17,230,000 cubic yards. The University of Arizona studies described in Section 11.1 will be used to determine the suitability of these deeper subgrade materials as growth media.

11.3 Other Revegetation Issues

Biological surveys have identified one or more species of nectar-feeding bats and two species of Forest Service-sensitive butterfly species inhabiting the Project area (see WestLand Resources, Inc. “Biological Resources and Mitigation Concept” Prepared for Augusta Resource Corporation, August 2007). The bats and butterflies are dependent on agaves for a food source. To the extent that seeds for agave are available, they will be included in the reclamation plan plant mix. In addition, transplanting agaves will be investigated to determine appropriate techniques and procedures and the feasibility of transplanting.

12.0 SUMMARY OF RECLAMATION AND CLOSURE CRITERIA

This section summarizes the reclamation and closure criteria applied to the preliminary reclamation design plans for the Rosemont Copper Project. Operational controls are also summarized that reduce the potential for long-term closure issues to occur.

• Placement of facilities to minimize or eliminate post-mining reclamation work, i.e. heap leach pad placed within waste rock storage area and covered.
   
• Placement of waste rock/buttress material at final design slopes and plan configurations to minimize regrading costs. Maintain minimum 3H:1V post-mining slopes.
  

   

• Maintain minimum post-mining slope stability factors per BADCT recommendations, i.e.
• 1.5 static and 1.1 dynamic.
• Placement of “inert” waste rock on outer slope areas and active management of potentially acid generating material. Implement a geochemical characterization program for the waste rock to verify preliminary geochemical characteristics and to provide updated placement information.
• Implementation of dry stack tailings disposal method to reduce water consumption requirements and minimize the potential for seepage.
• Design to applicable BADCT guidelines for the heap leach facilities to minimize the potential to impact groundwater and surface water resources.
• Construction of a perimeter berm/buttress around the southern and eastern sides of the waste rock storage facility to screen active operations from public view. Continuous buttress construction around these sides to be achieved by Year 5 of active operations.
• Concurrent reclamation of the outer shell of the Rosemont Ridge landform, with revegetation work starting in Year 1 of active operations.
   
• Soil salvage for reclaiming the outer surface of the Rosemont Ridge landform, plant site, and open pit benches, as needed.
• Construction of the Central Drain to maintain surface water flows to the downstream water course.
• Construction of the Infiltration Drain to reduce the potential for stormwater runoff damage off the top surface of Rosemont Ridge.
• Early decommissioning and reclamation of heap leach facilities to allow for monitoring of heap drain down during active sulfide mining and milling operations.
• Develop stable reclaimed surface contours on the Rosemont Ridge east outslope to blend with surrounding topography.

13.0 RECLAMATION AND CLOSURE COSTS

13.1 Bond Estimation

An updated guide for estimating reclamation bonds was issued by the USFS in April 2004. This guide is entitled Training Guide for Reclamation Bond Estimation and Administration for Mineral Plans of Operation authorized and administered under 30 CFR 228A (Guidance). This Guidance document explains the requirements for reclamation bonds as “Any operator required to file a plan of operations shall, when required by the authorized officer, furnish a bond conditioned upon compliance with 228.8(g), prior to approval of such plan of operations.”

The reclamation bond amount needs to be an estimate of both the direct and indirect costs required to reclaim the mineral operation. This estimate should be adjusted as the level of information changes. The basic premise of the estimate is that if the operator is unable to complete the reclamation, the USFS would have to perform the work.

The Guidance lists specific requirements for bond estimation:

• Determine the period of operation covered by the bond.
• What is being reclaimed?
• What are the standards to be met?
• What are the reclamation tasks?
• Estimate direct reclamation costs.
• Estimate indirect costs.
• Summarize and review the estimate.
  
  

13.1.1 Direct Cost Determination

The labor portion of the direct cost calculation was updated using the current Davis-Bacon General Wage Decision for Pima County. Modification 12 for AZ20030016, AZ20030002, AZ20030001, and AZ20030012, dated December 22, 2006, was referenced to update these labor costs. Equipment rental rates and mobilization and demobilization estimates were obtained from equipment rental cost bids provided by vendors in the Tucson area. Operating costs used in the bond estimate are provided in Appendix A.

Equipment productivities are determined from the adjusted production rate table in the Caterpillar Handbook Nos. 32 and 36. Monthly rental costs were divided by 160 to determine hourly rental costs, and the Caterpillar handbook was used to determine hourly operating costs. A suggested diesel fuel price of $3.20 per gallon (2006 Heavy Estimator) was used when calculating the operating costs. Productivity factors can be found in Appendix B.

13.1.2 Indirect Cost Determination

Indirect operating costs were determined using the following percentages:

• Insurance	1% of total direct costs
• Workers Compensation	10% of total labor
• Contract Administration	15% of total direct costs
• Bond	1% of total direct costs
• Profit	10% of total direct costs

13.2 Period of Operation Covered

The Guidance referenced in Section 13.1.1 specifies that bond estimates must cover the peak reclamation cost in the respective period. Since the potential for underestimation exists for large, complex mining operations, the cost estimate should also be based on anticipated reclamation work as approved in the plan of operations. This will occur during the specific bond period when the following combination exists:

• Greatest area of disturbance;
  
• Most equipment, facilities, or materials are on-site;
  
• Largest volume of materials have to be moved for backfilling/regrading;
  
• Greatest volume of exposure of materials, facilities, or equipment needing special handling;
  
• Greatest disturbance of resources requiring high cost reclamation or mitigation; and
  
• The operation, monitoring, and maintenance costs needed in both the short and long-term to ensure public safety and to prevent environmental damage are the most costly.

Since the Rosemont facility has not yet been established, bond estimates were based on the greatest disturbance area anticipated on an annual basis and at the conclusion of operations. The estimated disturbance areas and costs associated for reclaiming the facilities on an annual “early closure” scenario are provided in Table 13-1. The areas associated with Table 13-1 are shown in Figures 35-43, with costing details provided in Appendix C.

Table 13-1: Annual “Early Closure” Costing

Year	Disturbed Area (acres)	Estimated Road/Utility Corridor and Buffer (acres)	Early Closure Reclamation (acres)	Cost of Reclamation ($ million)
Year -1	1,197	560	1,271	14.0
Year 1	1,668	560	1,039	15.6
Year 2	2,067	629	1,344	16.3
Year 3	2,370	790	1,572	17.4
Year 4	2,614	790	1,648	18.6
Year 5	2,863	790	2,067	19.8
Years 6-10	3,447	790	2,454	23.4
Years 11-15	3,547	790	2,569	13.2
Years 16-19	3,625	790	2,743	18.0

Based on a bid by Brandenburg Industrial Service Company, the company who performed demolition activities at the BHP San Manuel Smelter, an anticipated $5.3 million will be spent on demolition of the plant site facilities. A copy of this bid is provided in Appendix D.

The greatest anticipated cost on an annualized “early closure” basis is found in Years 6-10. Costs expended in these years include the closure of the heap leach facility and ponds. A portion of the cost includes regrading and capping the leach pad, including associated solutions management activities. Costs for solutions management are detailed in Appendix E. Miscellaneous reclamation costs are provided in Appendix F.

The average reclamation cost per acre for the annualized “early closure” basis is just over $10,000.

Concurrent reclamation activities are planned for the Rosemont facility, and an overall reclamation cost estimate was prepared for operating the facility for 19 years. Table 13-2 and Figures 3 through 11 and Figure 19 present this overall reclamation scenario.

Table 13-2: Overall Reclamation Costing

Year	Disturbed Area (acres)	Estimated Road/Utility Corridor and Buffer (acres)	Concurrent Reclamation (acres)	Cost of Reclamation ($ million)
Year -1	1,197	560	-	-
Year 1	1,668	560	162	0.8
Year 2	2,067	629	187	0.7
Year 3	2,370	790	185	0.7
Year 4	2,614	790	130	0.4
Year 5	2,863	790	159	0.6
Years 6-10	3,447	790	495	2.2
Years 11-15	3,547	790	435	1.6
Years 16-19	3,625	790	1628	16.8
Total	3,625	790	3,381	23.8

The total area reclaimed is approximately 3,625 acres while the total area shown as Anticipated Project Disturbance in Section 2 Table 1 of the Mine Plan of Operations is 4,415 acres. The difference in acreage (810 acres) can be accounted for as the unreclaimed pit area, construction buffer areas around the plant site, and the roadways and utility corridors not scheduled for reclamation. These areas have not been included in the reclamation cost estimate.

Arizona Mined Land Reclamation Plan Part 1 - Page 4

 

13.3 Area Specific Reclamation

Table 13-3 below specifies each of the areas being reclaimed and the activities planned for each area.

Table 13-3: Reclamation Activities Summary Table

ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT – LIFE OF MINE			July 2007
Area	Approximate Size (ac)	Activity	Clarification
Rosemont Open Pit	135	Safety Berm	A safety berm of waste rock will be constructed around the lower end of the pit (5 feet high, 2.5:1 sideslopes)
		Soil Amendments & Seeding	Portions of the pit backfill area.
Perimeter Berm	400	Ripping, Regrading & Cover	The perimeter berm will be graded to a 3:1 slope, topsoil added as appropriate, and the area ripped.
		Soil Amendments & Seeding	The Wheeler Method will be applied to the top surface.
Waste Rock Storage	1,600	Ripping, Regrading & Cover	The top surface of the Waste Rock Storage Facility will be graded to promote drainage and ripped to a depth of 1 foot.
		Soil Amendments & Seeding	The Wheeler Method will be applied to the top surface.
Leach Pad	210	Solution Evaporation	Remaining solution will be evaporated.
		Demolition	Support equipment such as pumps, pipes, powerline, etc. will be removed to an on-site landfill.
		Cover	The leach pad will be covered with waste rock.
Tailings Starter Buttress	330	Ripping, Regrading & Cover	The buttress will be regraded to a 3.5:1 overall slope, covered with topsoil, and ripped as appropriate.
		Soil Amendments & Seeding	The Wheeler Method will be applied.
Tailings Surface	540	Ripping, Regrading & Cover	The top surface will be graded to drain and covered.
		Soil Amendments & Seeding	The Wheeler Method will be applied.
PWTS, Raffinate, PLS, and	20	Liner Removal	The pond will be emptied and sludge will be hauled to the
Rosemont Open Pit	135	Safety Berm	A safety berm of waste rock will be constructed around the lower end of the pit (5 feet high, 2.5:1 sideslopes)
		Soil Amendments & Seeding	Portions of the pit backfill area.
Perimeter Berm	400	Ripping, Regrading & Cover	The perimeter berm will be graded to a 3:1 slope, topsoil added as appropriate, and the area ripped.
		Soil Amendments & Seeding	The Wheeler Method will be applied to the top surface.
Waste Rock Storage	1,600	Ripping, Regrading & Cover	The top surface of the Waste Rock Storage Facility will be graded to promote drainage and ripped to a depth of 1 foot.
		Soil Amendments & Seeding	The Wheeler Method will be applied to the top surface.
Leach Pad	210	Solution Evaporation	Remaining solution will be evaporated.
		Demolition	Support equipment such as pumps, pipes, powerline, etc. will be removed to an on-site landfill.
		Cover	The leach pad will be covered with waste rock.
Tailings Starter Buttress	330	Ripping, Regrading & Cover	The buttress will be regraded to a 3.5:1 overall slope, covered with topsoil, and ripped as appropriate.
		Soil Amendments & Seeding	The Wheeler Method will be applied.
Tailings Surface	540	Ripping, Regrading & Cover	The top surface will be graded to drain and covered.
		Soil Amendments & Seeding	The Wheeler Method will be applied.
PWTS, Raffinate, PLS, and	20	Liner Removal	The pond will be emptied and sludge will be hauled to the
Stormwater Ponds			Leach Pad or tailings. Edges of the embankment liner will be folded and welded together. The Raffinate and PLS Pond will be covered by waste rock and positive drainage will be restored. The ponds will be removed and the remaining surface will be regraded to promote drainage. The PWTS pond will be graded to drain.
		Demolition	The liners and embankments will be removed as needed to eliminate the potential for ponding.
		Burial	The Raffinate, PLS, and Stormwater pond at the leach pad will be buried in place by the waste rock dump.
		Ripping, Regrading & Cover	If the ponds are not buried they will be regraded to drain, and the slopes ripped, covered, and reseeded as appropriate.
Access Roads, Utility Corridors, and Buffer Areas	425	Soil Amendments & Seeding	The edges area will be scarified and seeded.
		Demolition	Culverts will be removed as appropriate.
		Ripping, Regrading & Backfilling	Road surfaces will be ripped. Natural drainage patterns will be reestablished and sediment control structures will be established as appropriate.
Haul Roads	Unknown	Demolition	Culverts will be removed.
		Ripping, Regrading & Backfilling	Road surfaces will be ripped. Natural drainage patterns will be reestablished and sediment control structures will be established.
		Soil Amendments & Seeding	The area will be scarified and seeded.
Miscellaneous Items		Water Supply Line Removal	The pipes will be dismantled and removed from property.
		Tank Removal	The tanks owned by contractors will be dismantled and removed by the respective contractors.
		Powerline Removal	Lines and power poles will be removed as discussed with power providers.
		Equipment Mobilization / Demobilization	Includes mobilization and demobilization of all equipment used during reclamation.
		Production, Monitoring, and Dewatering Well Closure	All wells will be closed in accordance with standard well closure methods per state guidelines.
		Post Closure Monitoring	Includes a technician and analytical test work.
		Bulk Chemical Removal	All hazardous bulk chemicals will be used or removed from the property.
		Testing	Before burial of the foundation concrete (Tank Farm, Truck-Shop, and SX/EW) will be tested for hazardous constituents.
		Substations	The area will be regraded, scarified, and seeded.
		Misc. Exploration Roads	Any existing exploration roads that must be closed will be itemized and the cost estimate updated.
		Reclamation Supervisor	A supervisor will be on-site for the year of reclamation.

 

13.4 Standards of Reclamation

The standards that will be met include:

• Demolition – removal and disposal of non-contaminated facilities, equipment, and materials. In some cases, inert materials such as concrete foundation materials or pond liners may be disposed of in cells constructed at the site. 
  
• Facility design – engineered facilities that will be constructed for reclamation will have associated design standards. At this point, facilities to remain on USFS land include a constructed wetland, a diversion structure, and dumps. These facilities will be constructed as needed during operations for water control and mitigation. Only the cost of performing earthwork activities for these structures is included. 
  
• Water quality – water quality standards (federal and state) that will be met by site discharges will be determined by permit requirements. Groundwater standards will be addressed by the state aquifer protection permit (APP) requirements, and surface water requirements will be addressed through the National Pollution Elimination Discharge Permit (NPDES) by either an individual or general permit. 
  
• Landform – post-mining land slopes, drainages, and contours will be designed to minimize erosion and manage runoff. 
  
• Stability – physical stability includes components that will address erosion. Chemical stability is not addressed by this plan since the chemistry associated with the operation has not been fully developed. It is anticipated that solutions will be managed prior to closure and any reagents or other operating chemicals will be removed prior to commencing reclamation. 
  
• Revegetation – seed mixes that are appropriate for the area have been specified. Revegetation activities will include the application of seeds to supplement the natural revegetation process. The current plan is to monitor revegetation efforts to meet the Natural Resource Conservation Standards for Rangeland Health. 
  
• Mitigation – mitigation requirements have not been established for the Project and are therefore not included herein. 
  
• Monitoring and Maintenance – reclamation protection and monitoring requirements have been added to address on-going costs. 
  
• Safety – public safety concerns are addressed by placing berms and/or fencing around the open pit and regrading slopes associated with the waste rock and tailings storage areas. 
  
• Permitting – this plan does not address permitting.

   

13.5 Tasks Covered in Cost Estimates

In this section, the activities, equipment, materials, and personnel needed for reclamation are described. The Guidance specifies typical reclamation tasks. These tasks fall into the following eight categories:

• Interim Operations and Maintenance – since operations for this site have not yet started, interim operations and maintenance costs have not been estimated. 
  
• Hazardous Materials – hazardous materials that may be used in this process are considered products until they are placed in the operation. At the end of the operational period, any chemicals remaining in product tanks will be available for resale or return to the vendor. Solutions containing copper can be sold rather than disposed of.
  
• Water Treatment – water will be evaporated as a solutions management option. 
  
• Demolition Removal, and Disposal of Uncontaminated Structures, Equipment and Materials – the demolition and disposal activities were estimated based on a bid provided by Brandenburg Industrial Service Company. 
  
• Earthwork – earthwork has been based on current plans. 
  
• Revegetation – the amount of revegetation being performed has been calculated using current facility plans. Costs were estimated for the Wheeler method which was used in a 1997 bond estimate accepted by the Forest Service in the Tonto National Forest. Should the Wheeler Method be deemed inappropriate in the future, the higher cost of this method should cover any alternatives. 
  
• Mitigation – this plan does not address mitigation. 
  
• Long-term Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring – the level and estimated cost of these activities was estimated based on current permitting standards. 

Arizona Mined Land Reclamation Plan Part 1 - Page 5

 

13.6 Summary

The direct and indirect cost estimates per area have been summarized in Table 13-4 on the following page. Cost summary tables can be found in Appendix C.

Table 13-4: Reclamation Cost Summary per Activity Area (Part 1)

Task	Approx. Reclamation Area2 (acres)	Hazardous Materials Cost ($)	Water Quality ($)	Demolition/ Cleanup Cost ($)	Equipment Cost ($)
Rosemont Open Pit	135				41,300
Perimeter Berm	402				1,340,800
Waste Rock Storage	1,600				4,178,900
Tailings Starter Buttress	3600				948,300
Tailings	540				1,148,500
Process Ponds	20		321,400	29,700	61,800
Roads	Unknown
Plant Site	120	210,000		5,192,300	960,600
Topsoil Stockpiles	200				75,600
Stormwater Basins	2				4,100
Miscellaneous Reclamation Costs	0	25,200		150,000	69,400
Total	3,379	$ 235,200	$ 321,400	$ 5,372,000	$ 8,829,300

² Acreage variance from Westland Resources’ Mine Plan of Operations due to rounding.

 

Table 13-4: Reclamation Cost Summary per Activity Area (Part 2)

Task	Labor Cost ($)	Revegetation Cost ($)	Long-term Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Cost ($)	Subtotal Direct Cost ($)	Indirect Cost ($)	Total Cost ($)
Rosemont Open Pit	5,000	24,300		70,600	19,600	90,100
Perimeter Berm	133,200	199,000		1,673,000	465,000	2,138,000
Waste Rock Storage	564,400	790,400		5,533,700	1,550,500	7,084,200
Tailings Starter Buttress	85,700	178,800		1,212,700	336,000	1,548,800
Tailings	155,300	266,700		1,570,500	439,600	2,010,100
Process Ponds	8,300	99,800		521,000	141,500	662,500
Roads
Plant Site	129,000	83,200		6,575,100	1,788,200	8,363,300
Topsoil Stockpiles	10,800	99,000		185,400	51,100	236,500
Stormwater Basins	600	700		5,400	1,500	6,900
Miscellaneous Reclamation Costs	103,100	714,000	346,800	1,408,500	390,600	1,799,100
Total	$1,195,400	$ 2,455,900	$ 346,800	$18,755,900	$5,183,600	$23,939,500

 

14.0 REFERENCES

Consultant reports
Tetra Tech (2007), Site Water Management Plan, June 2007
Tetra Tech (2007), Geotechnical Investigation Report, June 2007
Tetra Tech (2007), Baseline Geochemical Investigation, June 2007
Tetra Tech (2007), Dry Stack Tailings Design Report, June 2007
Tetra Tech (2007), Leach Facilities Design Report, June 2007
Tetra Tech (2007), Waste Management Report, June 2007
Tetra Tech (2007), Soil Characterization Report, June 2007
Tetra Tech (2007), Soil Salvage Report, Operations Areas, June 2007
Tetra Tech (2007), Soil Salvage Report, Plant Areas, June 2007
Tetra Tech and Errol Montgomery & Associates (2007), Groundwater Protection Plan, June 2007 WestLand Resources,
	Inc. “Biological Resources and Mitigation Concept.” Prepared for Augusta Resource Corporation, August 2007.
WestLand Resources, Inc. “Mine Plan of Operations.” Prepared for Augusta Resource Corporation, July 11, 2007.
Agency reports
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. Arizona Aquifer Protection Program, Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.).
	§49-252 et.seq.
Arizona State Mine Inspector. Arizona Mined Land Reclamation Act (1997), A.R.S §27-971 et.seq.
Pima County. Multi-Species Conservation Plan, Prepared by RECON Environmental, Inc. August 19, 2006.
Pima County Association of Governments. Contribution of Davidson Canyon to the Base Flows in Cienega Creek,
	November 2006.
USDA – Forest Service (2004) Training Guide for Reclamation Bond Estimation and Administration. For Mineral Plans of
	Operation authorized and administered under 26 CFR 228A., April 2004.
USDA- Forest Service. Plan of Operations, 36 Code of Federal Regulations, 36 §220.4.
Books
Caterpillar Handbooks Numbers 32 and 36
Memoranda
Davis-Bacon, General Decision: AZ2003, December 22, 2006
Huckleberry, C.J. Memorandum to Pima County Board of Supervisors on Rosemont Mining July 31, 2006 Plan of
	Operations, .October 5, 2006.
The Mines Project Group. Creative Land Development and Resource Extraction in Southern Arizona, the Helvetia/
	Rosemont roject. Prepared for Anamax, Inc., July 1980.

 

Figures

 

Appendix A and Attachment A

 

 

APPENDIX A
RECLAMATION COST ESTIMATES

 

ATTACHMENT A
RECLAMATION AND CLOSURE PLAN

 

Reclamation and Closure Plan
Rosemont Copper

July 2007

Rosemont Copper Project
Reclamation and Closure Plan

Prepared for:

Augusta Resource Corporation
4500 Cherry Creek South Drive,
Suite #1040
Denver, CO 80246
(303) 300-0138
Fax (303) 300-0135

Prepared by:

3031 West Ina Road
Tucson, Arizona 85741
(520) 297-7723
Fax (520) 297-7724

 

Tetra Tech Project No. 320614-400

July 2007

1.0	INTRODUCTION AND REGULATORY REVIEW
	1.1	Arizona Mined Land Reclamation Requirements
		1.1.1	Arizona Mined Land Reclamation Act Standards
		1.1.2	Financial Assurance
	1.2	Forest Service Requirements
		1.2.1	Forest Service Reclamation Standards
		1.2.2	Forest Service Bonding Requirements
	1.3	Aquifer Protection Permit (APP) Requirements
		1.3.1	APP Closure Notification Requirements
		1.3.2	APP Financial Assurance Requirements
	1.4	Other
2.0	GENERAL FACILITY ARRANGEMENTS
3.0	ROSEMONT RECLAMATION AND CLOSURE CONCEPTS
4.0	ROSEMONT POST-CLOSURE LAND USES
	4.1	Recreation
	4.2	Ranching
	4.3	Wildlife Habitat
	4.4	Long-Term Management Opportunities
5.0	CONCURRENT RECLAMATION
	5.1	Waste Rock Materials, Quantities, and Timing
	5.2	General Buttress Development – Waste Rock Storage Area
	5.3	General Buttress Development – Tailings Storage Areas
	5.4	Central Drain
	5.5	Reclamation Phasing
	5.6	Surface Treatments and Stormwater Control
	5.7	Ridge and Valley Method
	5.8	Lift Construction and Concurrent Reclamation
6.0	OTHER PRINCIPAL RECLAMATION AREAS
	6.1	Leach Facility
	6.2	Open Pit
	6.3	Plant Site and Ancillary Facilities Demolition
	6.4	Access Road Removal
7.0	OPERATING CONSIDERATIONS
	7.1	Interim Operations and Maintenance
	7.2	Hazardous Materials
	7.3	Demolition
	7.4	Demolition
	7.5	Water Quality
	7.6	Landform
	7.7	Stability
	7.8	Revegetation
	7.9	Mitigation
	7.10	Monitoring / Maintenance
	7.11	Safety
	7.12	Permitting
8.0	SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
	8.1	Process Water Containment and Stormwater Control
		8.1.1	Operational Phase
		8.1.2	Closure and Post-Closure
	8.2	Conservation of Downstream Surface Water Flows
	8.3	Preservation of Pre-mining Surface Water Quality
9.0	GROUNDWATER PROTECTION
	9.1	Waste Rock.
	9.2	Tailings Disposal
	9.3	Leach Facilities
	9.4	Open Pit
	9.5	Groundwater Monitoring
10.0	SEDIMENT AND DUST CONTROL
	10.1	Stormwater Controls.
		10.1.1	Stormwater Controls.
		10.1.2	Pre-Mining Construction and Post-Closure Demolition Stormwater Controls
	10.2	Dust Control
11.0	REVEGETATION PLANNING AND SOIL SURVEYS
	11.1	University of Arizona Testing Program
		11.1.1	Prospective Seed Mixes
		11.1.2	Rainfall Scenarios
		11.1.3	Soil/Surface Amendments
		11.1.4	Greenhouse Testing
		11.1.5	Test Plots
	11.2	Soil Survey Results
		11.2.1	Suitable Soil Areas
		11.2.2	Estimated Soil Salvage Areas and Volumes
	11.3	Other Revegetation Issues
12.0	SUMMARY OF RECLAMATION AND CLOSURE CRITERIA
13.0	RECLAMATION AND CLOSURE COSTS
	13.1	Bond Estimation
		13.1.1	Direct Cost Determination.
		13.1.2	Indirect Cost Determination
	13.2	Period of Operation Covered
	13.3	Area Specific Reclamation
	13.4	Standards of Reclamation
	13.5	Tasks Covered in Cost Estimates
	13.6	Summary

 

LIST OF TABLES
Table 5.1:	Waste Rock Types and Descriptions
Table 5.2:	Rock Fragment Distribution Summary.
Table 5.3:	Annual Waste Rock Production Schedule (ktons)
Table 5.4:	Waste Rock Buttress Construction (elevation above mean sea level)
Table 5.5:	Yearly Reclamation Areas
Table 13-1:	Annual “Early Closure” Costing
Table 13-2:	Overall Reclamation Costing
Table 13-3:	Reclamation Activities Summary Table
Table 13-4:	Reclamation Cost Summary per Activity Area
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Illustration 5.1:	Comparison of ANP and AGP of Rock Types
Illustration 5.2:	Net Acid Generation pH Compared to NNP
Illustration 5.3:	Natural Hillslope Profile.
Illustration 5.4:	North-East Area of Rosemont Ridge (Facing East)
FIGURES
Figure 01:	Title Sheet and Project Location Map
Figure 02:	Area Watershed Boundaries with Ultimate Facility Footprints
Figure 03	General Facility Layout at Pre-Production (Year -1)
Figure 04:	General Facility Layout at Year 1 of Operations
Figure 05:	General Facility Layout at Year 2 of Operations
Figure 06:	General Facility Layout at Year 3 of Operations
Figure 07:	General Facility Layout at Year 4 of Operations
Figure 08:	General Facility Layout at Year 5 of Operations
Figure 09:	General Facility Layout at Year 10 of Operations
Figure 10:	General Facility Layout at Year 15 of Operations
Figure 11:	General Facility Layout at Year 19 of Operations
Figure 12:	General Rosemont Ridge Landform – Post-Mining Facility Layout
Figure 13:	General Rosemont Ridge Landform – Cross Section A-A’
Figure 14:	General Rosemont Ridge Landform – Cross Sections B-B’ and C’C’
Figure 15:	General Rosemont Ridge Landform – Cross Sections D-D’ and E-E’
Figure 16:	Central/Infiltration Drains – Section Details
Figure 17:	Waste Rock Buttress Lift Construction and Reclamation
Figure 18:	Dry Stack Tailings Buttress Lift Construction and Reclamation
Figure 19:	Rosemont Ridge – Composite of Yearly Reclamation Areas
Figure 20:	Viewshed Analysis – Pre-production – Coarse Ore Stockpile Building
Figure 21:	Viewshed Analysis – Year 5 – Coarse Ore Stockpile Building
Figure 22:	Viewshed Analysis – Year 15 – Coarse Ore Stockpile Building
Figure 23:	Rosemont Ridge - Post-Mining Stormwater Routing
Figure 24:	Typical Ridge and Valley Design – Plan View
Figure 25:	Typical Ridge and Valley Design – Section View
Figure 26:	Rosemont Ridge – Ridge and Valley Method w/o Relief
Figure 27:	Post-Mining Facility – Rendered View w/o Relief from Milepost 46
Figure 28:	Post-Mining Facility – Rendered View w/o Relief from Milepost 44
Figure 29:	Rosemont Ridge – Ridge and Valley Method w/Relief
Figure 30:	Post-Mining Facility – Rendered View w/Relief from Milepost 46
Figure 31:	Post-Mining Facility – Rendered View w/Relief from Milepost 44
Figure 32:	Plan View of Plant Site Area Showing Operational Facilities
Figure 33:	Plan View of Post-Closure Plant Site Area
Figure 34:	PMA Boundary and Compliance Wells
Figure 35:	Early Closure Layout Following Pre-Production Period (Year -1)
Figure 36:	Early Closure Layout Following Year 1
Figure 37:	Early Closure Layout Following Year 2
Figure 38:	Early Closure Layout Following Year 3
Figure 39:	Early Closure Layout Following Year 4
Figure 40:	Early Closure Layout Following Year 5
Figure 41:	Early Closure Layout Following Year 10
Figure 42:	Early Closure Layout Following Year 15
Figure 43:	Closure Layout Following Year 19
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A:	Operating Costs
Appendix B:	Equipment Productivity
Appendix C:	Reclamation Costs
Appendix D:	Price Quotes and Bids
Appendix E:	Solutions Management
Appendix F:	Miscellaneous Demolition, Cleanup, and Disposal Costs

INTRODUCTION AND REGULATORY REVIEW

Augusta Resource Corporation (Augusta) proposes to mine and process ores from the Rosemont Copper Project (Project) located 30 miles southeast of Tucson, Arizona. Figure 1 shows the general location of the Project site. Overall, the Project will entail an open pit mine with ore processing consisting of both milling and copper leaching. Conventional heap leach technology will be used at the site along with a “dry stack” tailings storage method associated with the milling process. Details of the mine operation are provided in the Rosemont Project Mine Plan of Operations (July 2007).

The proposed Project facilities will be constrained to Barrel Canyon located upgradient of Davidson Canyon in the Cienega Creek basin. Figure 2 provides a delineation of the watershed basins in the Project area with an overlay of the ultimate facility footprints. The Santa Rita Mountains are also indicated on Figure 2 as well as property lines and the location of Highway 83 . Highway 83 connects with Interstate I-10 to the north and with Sonoita, Arizona to the south.

As a component of Augusta’s overall environmental stewardship vision for the Rosemont Copper Project, this Reclamation and Closure Plan (Plan) has been designed to meet regulatory requirements through a unique concurrent reclamation and closure approach. This approach also provides a template for operational measures that will be employed during the life of the facility.

This Plan developed for the Rosemont Project includes the following sections:

• Section 1.0 – Introduction and Regulatory Review

   

• Section 2.0 – General Facility Arrangements

   

• Section 3.0 – Rosemont Reclamation and Closure Concepts

   

• Section 4.0 – Rosemont Post-Closure Land Uses

   

• Section 5.0 – Concurrent Reclamation

   

• Section 6.0 – Other Principal Reclamation Areas

   

• Section 7.0 – Operating Considerations

   

• Section 8.0 – Surface Water Hydrology

   

• Section 9.0 – Groundwater Protection

   

• Section 10.0 – Sediment and Dust Control

   

• Section 11.0 – Revegetation Planning and Soil Surveys

   

• Section 12.0 – Summary of Reclamation and Closure Criteria

   

• Section 13.0 – Reclamation and Closure Costs

   

• Section 14.0 – References

   

An overview of the major facilities associated with the Project, both during operations and post-closure, are provided in Section 2.0. Section 3.0 provides a discussion of the general concepts and philosophy that are the cornerstones of this reclamation and closure plan. Post-mining land use goals and legacies are summarized in Section 4.0. Final reclaimed facility surfaces considered both ranching and wildlife habitat in their design. Recreational use was considered for the broader area.

One of the major initiatives of the Plan will be to facilitate concurrent reclamation of the outer shell of the waste rock and dry stack tailings areas (Section 5.0). This approach utilizes the development of waste rock buttresses along the eastern and southern sides of the waste rock storage area to lessen the visual impact of the mining operation from points along Highway 83 and other surrounding areas. Waste rock buttresses are also planned for the outer shell of the “dry stack” tailings storage areas. The overall approach to mining, processing, and sequencing of material placed within the footprint of the ultimate waste rock and tailings storage areas, termed the Rosemont Ridge landform, is also addressed in Section 5.0. The other principal reclamation areas are presented in Section 6.0. Protection of the environment via management practices during operations is addressed in Section 7.0.

Closure and reclamation requirements will be guided by the protection of surface water and groundwater resources. Although these measures are addressed in other report volumes associated with the Mine Plan of Operations (June 2007), they are summarized herein to provide a complete picture of the overall environmental protection envisioned for the site. Section 8.0 summarizes the general surface water hydrology plan and Section 9.0 the groundwater protection plan. Sediment and dust control are described in Section 10.0.

To facilitate reclamation at the site, revegetation test work is currently being performed by the University of Arizona, School of Natural Resources. Section 11.0 describes this testing program as well as providing a summary of an area soil survey performed in 2007.

Section 12.0 summarizes the overall reclamation/closure elements and design criteria proposed for the Project. As previously stated, Augusta will, to the extent practicable, employ concurrent reclamation of the facilities. Therefore, reclamation costs will be expended as the operation progresses. Estimated reclamation costs are provided in Section 13.0. Reclamation costs were estimated not only for the ultimate scenario, i.e., after year 19, but for incremental years should operations be discontinued before the proposed ultimate facility configuration is reached. This incremental estimate is required per Forest Service bonding requirements.

In addition to the requirements set forth by Augusta, the major elements of this Plan are dictated by regulatory requirements contained in the Arizona Mined Land Reclamation Act, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Plan of Operations regulations, and the Arizona Aquifer Protection Program. Although other regulatory requirements may contribute to other mitigation elements, these three regulatory programs form the framework for the Plan. A short summary of the reclamation and closure requirements from these three regulatory programs is provided for contextual reference.

1.1 Arizona Mined Land Reclamation Requirements

The Arizona Mined Land Reclamation Act (AMLRA) was designed to provide a mechanism to require the reclamation of mined land in Arizona. The State Mine Inspector’s Office approves plans and sets requirements; the primary function is to leave a mining operation in a safe and stable condition that is appropriate for a specified post-mining land use (PMLU).

PMLUs are determined based on the opportunities afforded for future use of the land while still ensuring public safety. These land use determinations are based in part of on the type, density, and diversity of vegetation that is appropriate and technically and economically practicable given the site specific characteristics.

In addition to the PMLU, the reclamation plan must include topographic information of the site including regrading of disturbed areas, surface water routing and impoundments, and information on structures left at the site. The Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §27-971(B)(9) requires the following information:

9. The proposed reclamation measures that are necessary to achieve the post-mining land use including information concerning:

(a) The measures that will be taken to restrict public access to pits, adits, shafts and other surface features that may be a hazard to public safety.

(b) The measures that will be taken to address erosion control and stability.

(c) The measures that will be taken to address revegetation, conservation and the care and monitoring of revegetated areas as provided in this chapter.

(d) For surface disturbances where the proposed post-mining land use objective is designated as grazing, fish or wildlife habitat, forestry or recreation, the type of wildlife or fish habitat to be encouraged, including measures that will be taken to encourage that type of wildlife or fish habitat, and that those measures will not be incompatible with the fish or wildlife habitat on adjacent lands.

The AMLRA requires that annual reports be filed to address the on-going reclamation activities that are performed at the site and which also illustrate disturbed areas.

The AMLRA is designed to work with federal reclamation and bonding programs to eliminate duplicative inspection, bonding, enforcement, and planning requirements. If plans administered by a federal agency are consistent with the requirements in the AMLRA, the federal requirements and bonding supersede the AMLRA.

1.1.1 Arizona Mined Land Reclamation Act Standards

There are several standards set forth in the AMLRA for reclamation. These standards are itemized below:

Public safety standards. Reclamation activities must be designed to reduce hazards to public safety by removing the hazard or restricting public access.

Erosion Control and Topographic Contouring. The reclamation activities shall result in stable conditions for erosion and seismic activity. Grading should be conducted to establish stable, suitable landforms for the PMLU. Permanent piles of mining materials should not restrict surface drainages or contribute to excessive erosion.

Roads. Road reclamation should begin once the road is no longer necessary. Traffic should be controlled on the reclamation area; appropriate drainage should be established; bridges and culverts shall be removed or protected; and roadbeds shall be ripped, plowed, scarified, and reseeded as necessary to achieve the PMLU.

Revegetation. The plan must describe the revegetation planned as well as the techniques, methods, controls, or measures to be used. Surfaces must be prepared to produce a suitable root zone in preparation for planting which should be completed during favorable times of the year. Plant species must be chosen to support the PMLU.

Soil Conservation. Soil conservation is required and all stockpiles shall be marked and stabilized. Land should be treated to eliminate excess compaction and to reduce the potential for slippage of placed soil. If off-site soil is used, it must be suitable for the vegetation and provide a stable growing surface.

1.1.2 Financial Assurance

Financial assurance is required in a sufficient amount for the implementation and execution of the reclamation plan. This must include earthmoving activities; revegetation; demolition; maintenance; equipment mobilization and demobilization; contractor profit and administrative overhead.

There are several mechanisms for financial assurance in the rules including bonds, blanket financial assurances, certificates of deposit, trust funds, letters of credit, insurances, certificates of self-insurance, cash deposits, and annuities. Incremental financial assurance based on the proposed surface disturbance is allowable.

1.2 Forest Service Requirements

The Forest Service requirements are not as clear-cut as in the AMLRA. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) states in 36 CFR 228.4 that the plan of operations include provisions for reclamation. This inclusion is found specifically in the statement:

“The plan of operations shall include……measures to be taken to meet the requirements for environmental protection in Sec. 228.8.”

Section 228.8 addresses specific resources and facilities like roads and includes a general section on reclamation in (g) of that section. Forest Service regulations contain no specific requirement for reclamation plans. However, there is a requirement for reclamation bonds. This is found in 36 CFR 228.13(a):

“Any operator required to file a plan of operations shall, when required by the authorized officer, furnish a bond conditioned upon compliance with 228.8(g), prior to approval of such plan of operations.”

The requirement for a bond under the plan of operations, one that is conditioned upon compliance with measures for reclamation, make a reclamation plan necessary in order to determine the required bond.

The Forest Service bond requirements differ from the AMLRA requirements in one significant respect. AMLRA bonds address surface disturbance and focus on making a site safe and stable. Forest Service bonds address the reclamation of the facility and include surface disturbances as well as the treatment of on-site materials, including water management issues. As such, the Forest Service bonds are targeted to an amount necessary to cover the peak costs associated with an operation.

The Forest Service also allows incremental bonding that can be based on any period that can be clearly understood in the reclamation planning process from one year up through the entire mine life. This requires planning that gives a full appreciation of how the operation will progress and encourages concurrent reclamation. These steps in turn lay the groundwork for incremental bonding and phased bond release.

Initial bonding estimates are generally based on conceptual design narratives, drawings, and maps. As more detailed designs, or “as built,” information becomes available, bonds are recalculated to either confirm original estimates or to update bonding requirements.

1.2.1 Forest Service Reclamation Standards

As stated, the Forest Service does not have specific technical requirements related to reclamation plans. However, there are a number of standards used in the bond estimate to insure that the reclamation objectives and requirements provided in the plan of operations have been achieved. These reclamation objectives and requirements, and any other requirements developed during the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis, are often based on planning documents for the forest or for other state and federal permits. This requires that reclamation plans and bonding receive input from interested parties before implementation.

Additional standards can be developed during the bond estimation process and are typically developed to address the mechanics of performing the reclamation work. As such, these standards do not create any additional impacts that need to be investigated under the NEPA process. Once the standards and the bond estimates are included in an approved plan of operations, they become legally binding.

Typically, the following issues are addressed in the reclamation and bonding packages:

Interim Operations and Maintenance. The plan must include any operations and maintenance needed to ensure the integrity of the project facilities and systems whose failure could potentially endanger human health and the environment in the unlikely event that there is no operator, and the Forest Service is responsible for the site.

Hazmat. Isolation, removal, treatment, or control of hazardous or toxic materials.

Demolition. Removal/disposal of non-contaminated facilities, equipment, and materials.

Facility Design. All engineered facilities that will be left, or constructed for reclamation/closure will have design standards such as covers, caps, water diversions, dams, etc.

Water Quality. Water quality standards that should be met by project discharges and any applicable water treatment activities.

Landform. Acceptable post-mining land slopes, drainages, and contours.

Stability. Standards for physical and chemical stability.

Revegetation. Acceptable vegetative communities and ground cover requirements. The activities for this section include subsoil preparation, topsoil or other growth media, seedbed preparation and amendments, sediment control measures, seeding, or planting. Bonding should include provision for retreatment or noxious weed control.

Mitigation. Mitigation required to compensate for damage which cannot be avoided. This can include stream channels, wildlife habitat, recreation, etc.

Monitoring/Maintenance. Reclamation protection and monitoring requirements.

Safety. All public safety requirements including fencing, signs, berms, etc.

Permitting. Any Federal or State requirements that must be met if the Forest Service is forced to assume closure and reclamation of the site.

1.2.2 Forest Service Bonding Requirements

The procedure suggested for approving, administering, and releasing reclamation bonds includes the following steps:

• Reclamation requirements, performance standards for bond release, and a schedule for periodic review and update of bond calculations should be identified in the NEPA analysis and required in the plan of operations.

   

• Bond calculations can begin after the Forest Service has finished the NEPA disclosure document and begins drafting the decision on the proposed plan of operations.

   

• Bond calculations should be sufficiently detailed¹ to support partial bond release for each project facility, activity, material, and associated surface disturbance. They should be sufficient to cover the estimated cost to cover the contract work needed to complete the work.

   

• Following NEPA analysis and issuance of the decision, the operator should be notified of the any changes needed for plan approval.

   

• The operator then sends updated plan and bond information to the authorized officer who has the authority to approve the bond.

   

• The authorized officer has the responsibility for approving a partial or final bond release after the minerals specialist inspects the site and documents that the requirements have been met. Similarly, the authorized officer has the authority to enforce reclamation requirements that are itemized in the plan of operations and specify work that needs to be completed for compliance.

   

There are a number of bonding instruments that can be used for reclamation bonds, including but not limited to: surety bonds; treasury bills, notes, and bonds; cash bonds; letter of credit; or assignment of savings accounts or certificates of deposit. The use of the FS6500-7 Reclamation Performance Bond Form is required for all bonds.

1.3 Aquifer Protection Permit (APP) Requirements

The Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §49-252 Closure Notification and Approval requires that:

A. The Director must be notified if a facility will permanently cease an activity for which the facility, or portion of the facility, was designed or operated.

B. Within ninety days of the notification, the owner/operator shall submit a closure plan to the Director.

C. If the Director determines that the closure plan is for a clean closure, the director shall send a letter of approval to the owner/operator and no aquifer protection permit shall be required.

D. If the Director determines that the proposed closure plan achieves a closure condition other than clean closure, the owner/operator shall submit an application for an APP or request to modify a current APP to address closure activities and post-closure monitoring and maintenance at the facility.

¹ According to the Forest Service Handbook, this detail should include: 1) Narrative descriptions; 2) Calculations of area and material; 3) Road and facility surface grades; 4) Accurate scale contour maps and figures showing facility arrangement; 5) Accurate scale drawings including plan and profile views and cross sections; 6) Schedule of construction; 7) Reclamation standards; 8) Reclamation activities and materials, equipment, administrative costs used to achieve standards on schedule; and 9) Kinds and volume of hazardous materials stored onsite including kind and volume of containers.

From the statutory requirements, regulatory requirements specifying closure notification information and financial assurance have been developed as outlined below.

1.3.1 APP Closure Notification Requirements

A closure/post-closure strategy must be drafted and submitted to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) for preliminary approval. The closure strategy must eliminate, to the greatest extent practicable, any reasonable probability of further discharge from the facility and of exceeding Aquifer Water Quality Standards at the applicable point of compliance. At closure, different facilities will have different management strategies. Those prescriptive strategies include:

• Tailings facilities shall be stabilized and allowed to dry to permit safe access by heavy equipment. The surface should be recontoured to eliminate ponding, thereby limiting infiltration. An appropriately designed cover system should be installed. Contained solutions should be disposed of by removal or by containment and evaporation.

   

• The closure strategy for leach pads shall include characterization and neutralization of spent ore residues; elimination of free liquids; recontouring of leach facilities as necessary to eliminate ponding; and capping if necessary. Measures to provide long-term physical stability are part of ADEQ’s Best Available Demonstrated Control Technology (BADCT) Guidance Manual to the extent that aquifer loading may be affected. In addition, it may be necessary to stabilize the leach pad to be resistant to water and wind erosion and to eliminate the potential for physical instability or sediment transport. These physical stabilization measures may include upgradient drainage controls, vegetation, or the placement of durable rock on the leach pile slopes.

   

• Process ponds will require the removal or evaporation of contained solutions. In addition, removal and appropriate disposal of the solid residues on the upper liner will be required. The lower liner and underlying soils should be inspected for visual signs of liner damage, defects, or leakage through the liner. If visual signs of leakage are found, additional investigation and soil remediation may be required. Once the underliner is determined to be clean, the liner can be placed back into the excavation (or removed) and the area backfilled. The area should be graded to drain surface runoff and minimize precipitation infiltration and the pond area capped with a low permeability cover as necessary. If the pond was bermed rather than excavated, the liner should be disposed of at a separate location.

   

• Non-stormwater, non-process ponds should be closed in a manner similar to the process ponds listed above.

   

Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R18-9-A208.B. requires that a complete closure plan for a facility include the following elements:

• A site investigation plan that includes a summary of relevant site studies already conducted and a proposed scope of work for any additional site investigations necessary to define the following:

   

  - Lateral and vertical extent of contamination in soils and groundwater;

  - Approximate quantity and chemical, biological, and physical characteristics of each waste, contaminated water, or contaminated soil that will remain at the facility; and

  - Information regarding site conditions related to pollutant fate and transport that may influence the scope of sampling necessary to characterize the site for closure.

• A summary describing the results of site investigations and any other applicable information.

   

• A closure design that identifies any of the following applicable elements:

   

  - The method used to treat any material remaining at the facility;

   

  - The method used to control the discharge of pollutants from the facility;

   

  - Any limitation on future land or water uses created as a result of the facility’s operations or closure activities and a Declaration of Environmental Use Restriction; and

  - The methods used to secure the facility.

• An estimate of the cost of closure.

   

• A schedule for the implementation of the closure plan and submission of a post-closure plan if clean closure is not achieved.

   

• A summary report detailing the results of the site investigation performed during closure activities, including confirmation and verification sampling.

   

If ADEQ determines that the closure plan achieves clean closure, the Director shall send the facility a Permit Release Notice. If the facility does not achieve clean closure, the facility shall submit a post-closure plan along with either an individual permit application or a request to modify an existing individual permit that addresses closure activities and post-closure monitoring and maintenance at the facility. Once all post-closure monitoring and maintenance activities are fulfilled under the permit or permit amendment, a summary report shall be issued and the Director shall issue a Permit Release Notice.

1.3.2 APP Financial Assurance Requirements

Financial assurance for the APP permit program are spelled out in AAC R18-9-A203 which requires that a person applying for an individual APP permit shall demonstrate financial capability to construct, operate, close, and ensure proper post-closure care of the facility [emphasis added]. Financial assurance mechanisms are specifically spelled out in the regulations and may include, but are not limited to, self assurance, performance surety bonds, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, insurance policy, or cash deposit.

1.4 Other

Other state and federal permits and approvals may also be required that complement or add to those in the reclamation plan. Examples of these types of permits include, but are not limited to, the Section 404 individual permit for discharge of fill into waters of the United States, stormwater discharge permits under the Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, and protection requirements for endangered, threatened, or species of concern.

GENERAL FACILITY ARRANGEMENTS

In general, the Project will involve the following facilities and processes:

• Open pit mine

   

• Waste rock storage facility designed to accommodate over 1.2 billion tons of waste rock

   

• Dry stack tailings facility designed to accommodate about 500 million tons of material

   

• Heap leach facility designed to accommodate approximately 50 million tons of material

   

• Milling facilities as well as maintenance/shops, etc.

   

• Solvent extraction/electrowinning facilities, including solution ponds

   

Both milling and leaching operations will be conducted at the site. An alternatives analysis was performed to select the best possible location for the leach pad and the tailings storage facilities. This analysis also included a study on disposal alternatives for the tailings, i.e. conventional versus dry stack methods. The dry stack method was selected based on operational criteria such as reducing water consumption and storage space. Another consideration included the reduced potential for impacting groundwater resources in the area.

The estimated project life of 19 years and the resulting tonnages stated above are based on a $1.50 per pound copper price. Figures 3 through 11 illustrate the progression of the facilities associated with the Rosemont operation from pre-production through Year 19. Ore delivery to the leach pad ceases in Year 6, with final closure of the leach facilities scheduled at Year 10. At year 19, all of the facilities listed above are active except for those associated with heap leach process.

At final closure, the Rosemont site will consist of the following:

• Open pit;

   

• Regraded plant and mill site areas;

   

• Rosemont Ridge landform encompassing the reclaimed waste rock, tailings, and spent heap leach material;

   

• Post-closure access roads; and

   

• Perimeter fencing.

   

Figure 12 provides a generalized view of the post-mining landscape. The most prominent features will be the open pit and the former waste rock and dry stack tailings storage areas, termed Rosemont Ridge (Ridge). The progression and reclamation of Rosemont Ridge, as well as other reclamation and closure aspects of the site, form the basis of this Plan.

Cross sections through the generalized Rosemont Ridge landform are provided on Figures 13 through 15. The plan view shown in Figure 12 and the section views illustrate a simplified landform without any specialized treatments to the top surfaces or to the side slopes. The Central and Infiltration Drains, key features associated with the operational and post-mining stormwater management of the site, are illustrated in Figure 16. The development of these drains is highlighted in Section 5.0. Alternatives for shaping and treating the outer shell of the Ridge, and for controlling stormwater, are also presented in Section 5.0. The basis for selecting surface treatments and the sequencing and development of Rosemont Ridge is derived from the initiatives described in Section 3.0.

3.0 ROSEMONT RECLAMATION AND CLOSURE CONCEPTS

The overall reclamation and closure plan proposed for Rosemont Copper is based on several key components, referred herein as initiatives. These initiatives provide the physical and philosophical foundation for this reclamation and closure plan and will remain constant throughout the operation of the facility. These initiatives include:

Beginning with the end in mind. The placement of materials in the various storage areas will be based on the final closure configuration. For example, the overall slopes of waste rock areas at closure will be 3H:1V minimum. Therefore, initial waste rock placement will incorporate setbacks, etc. to facilitate efficient regrading to achieve these final design slopes.

This philosophy also applies to the approach Augusta has taken with securing a sustainable water supply for the Project. Even before the first load of material is mined at the site, Augusta has already started a recharge program within the Tucson Active Management Area (AMA) so that the total water recharged will be 105% of the total water production over the life of the Project. Details of this recharge plan are found in the MPO.

Looking to the future and taking a broad view of the area post-mining, Augusta is investigating the development of a trust fund to be managed by a board of trustees with a view toward conservation and education. Augusta is also reviewing options for donating land and securing development rights of selected areas to help protect the land from future development.

Constructing an outer facility buttress. During the initial years of mine development, waste rock from stripping operations will be placed along portions of the southern and eastern footprint of the waste rock storage area. In addition to defining the outer footprint, placement of this outer buttress will be used to help screen active mining operations from vantage points in the area. In the waste rock storage area, the outer buttress will screen the active mining operations and isolate, if necessary, waste rock that may have the potential to generate acid rock drainage. In the tailings storage area, this outer waste rock buttress will serve to stabilize the outer slope of the dry tailings stacks.

Concurrently reclaiming the outer surfaces of the waste rock and tailings storage areas. Reclamation of the Rosemont Ridge landform will not be deferred to the end of the Project. Concurrent reclamation, as practicable, is planned for the outer shell or buttress encompassing the waste rock and tailings storage facilities. Growth media salvaged from the facility footprints may also be placed on the outer shell to facilitate revegetation.

Shaping the facilities to blend with surrounding topography. As practicable, and depending as aspect, the final reclaimed surface contours of Rosemont Ridge will reflect the natural topography in the area surrounding the Rosemont site. During the initial stages of operation, the waste rock, tailings, and heap leach areas will have distinct footprints. In time, however, the footprints will merge and share a common boundary. This final facility configuration will be shaped as needed to reflect surrounding topography. Surfaces will be constructed to achieve a stable landform, both at final closure and during operations.

The plant site area will be regraded as needed to achieve stable post-reclamation features. Topsoil placement and seeding are also anticipated for the upper benches of the open pit to reduce visual impacts.

Constraining disturbances to the Barrel Canyon drainage system. In order to limit the overall physical exposure of the Project, mine facilities are planned to be contained within the Barrel Canyon drainage system. Previous mine plans developed for the property had extended tailings and overburden storage facilities into Scholefield Drainage and also into Sycamore Canyon (Mines Project Group, University of Arizona, July 1980). The waste rock storage area, dry stack tailings storage facility, and heap leach facility are all located within the Barrel Canyon drainage system, with associated access roads leading into Barrel Canyon.

Minimizing downstream hydrologic disturbances. Facility construction will be planned and sequenced to minimize the disruption of surface and groundwater flows to downstream water courses. The sub-watersheds of Barrel Canyon and Scholefield Canyon comprise 16% and 6%, respectively, of the downstream Davidson Canyon watershed (Westland Resources, August 2007). It is estimated that Davidson Canyon contributes from 8% to 24% of the base flow in Cienega Creek at Marsh Station Road (Pima Association of Governments, November 2003). Cienega Creek is classified as a unique water by ADEQ. Therefore, conservation of the quantity and protection of the quality of surface and groundwater resources leaving the Project site is of high importance. Except for closed basins, such as the open pit, control structures will be designed to pass stormwater around or through the facilities during operations and at closure.

Preparing a comprehensive drainage plan. In addition to maintaining the overall hydrologic balance of the watershed basin, the surface water drainage plan for the reclaimed facilities will be strategically incorporated into the operational phase. The placement and timing of drainage structures will serve both the operational and closure stages of the Project. Specific surface water control methods selected for the reclaimed surface of the Rosemont Ridge landform vary depending on location.

Using modern technology to minimize the generation of impacted water. The Rosemont operation will include milling operations for sulfide ores and leaching for oxide ores. Conventional slurry line and settling pond technology for tailings disposal will not be used at Rosemont. Tailings will instead be mechanically filtered and stacked dry (10-15% moisture) behind a thick, durable rock buttress. The formation and migration of seepage from this tailings disposal system is negligible. The spent heap leach pile will be covered with a layer of durable waste rock, eliminating the possibility of flux through the pile.

Managing operations to minimize environmental impacts. As described above, the dry stack tailings material will be placed behind a thick buttress of waste rock. The buttress will be constructed in advance of the tailings deposition, thereby eliminating the migration of stormwater runoff from the tailings area and minimizing the potential for dust generation from the facility side slopes. Dust will be managed, as needed, by methods such as water sprays or dust suppressants.

Salvaging soil resources. Soil resources will be salvaged, as practicable and as needed, to reclaim the outer surface of the Ridge, as well as for reclamation of the plant site. Where practicable, soil resources will be stripped and placed directly on the outer slopes.

Implementing selective vegetation removal. Wherever possible, the existing desert shrubs and foliage will be left intact to decrease runoff and sediment loads. Species of concern such as the Arizona giant sedge and species of importance to wildlife such as agaves (food source for bats) are also present in the Project area (Westland Resources August, 2007). Where practicable, facilities will be constructed to avoid sensitive vegetation areas; if avoidance is not possible, salvage and transplant may be considered.

Revegetating reclaimed surfaces. The final reclaimed surfaces will be revegetated using a seed mix appropriate to the southwest. In addition to consultation with the Forest Service, testing is being performed at the University of Arizona’s School of Natural Resources to determine the desired seed mix, soil amendments, and planting techniques.

Preparing estimated closure costs for a variety of closure scenarios. Estimated closure costs were prepared for the facility - not only at the end of operations but also at intermediate years. Concurrent reclamation of the outer slopes of the Rosemont Ridge landform allows for retirement of closure obligations during operations. Accurate cost estimates are required for effective planning and facility operation as well as for the determination of performance guarantees.

AZ Mined Land Reclamation Plan Part 2 - Appendix A - Page 1

 

OPERATING COSTS

Labor Unit Rates
Augusta Resource Rosemont Project - Life of Mine

Wage Category	Application at the Rosemont Project	Base Rate ($)	Fringe ($)	Zone Pay ($)	Total Per Hour ($)
Updated 2005 estimation
Foreman	Supervisors/Foremen				75.00
Equipment Operator (Group 2, Zone 2)	Dozer Operators including Challenger, small cranes (<15 tons), and roller (1)	21.42	8.24	1.00	30.66
Material types taken from Caterpillar 2002 Handbook, Edition 32 and Caterpillar 2006 Handbook, Edition 36.	Mechanics and crane operators (>15 tons and <100 tons) (1)	22.50	8.24	1.00	31.74
Equipment Operator (Group 4, Zone 2)	Loader operators, large crane operators (>100 tons) (1)	23.53	8.24	1.00	32.77
Equipment Operator - Backhoe	Backhoe operators (2)	16.82	2.52		19.34
Equipment Operator - Excavator (Group 4)	Excavator operator (2)	23.53	8.24		31.77
Equipment Operator - Grader/Scraper	Grader and scraper drivers (2)	14.45	2.45		16.90
Truck Driver (Group 7)	Haul truck and dump truck operators (2)	18.97	4.97		23.94
Laborers (Group 1, Zone 1)	All construction/demolition laborers (2)	14.26	4.40		18.66
Iron Workers (Zone 1)	Demolition iron workers and welders (2)	23.00	14.80		37.80
Technician	Technician	22.00	-		22.00

1. Rates are based on Davis Bacon Indices General Decision (1) AZ20030016 Modification 20 and (2) AZ20030012 Modification 19, dated 12/22/06 for Pima County Arizona (AZ20030016 is for heavy dam construction, and AZ20030012 is for heavy construction based on non-union indexes).

    

2. The rate for the Foreman is based on industry standard.

    

Equipment Rental Unit Rates
Augusta Resource Rosemont Project - Life of Mine

Type of Equipment	Application at the Rosemont Project	Hourly Rate ($)	Operating Cost ($)/hour	Regional Adjustment	Total Cost /Hour ($)
4x4 1/2 ton Pickup Truck	874.00	5.46	6.91	1	12.37
4x4 3/4 ton Pickup Truck	874.00	5.46	6.46	1	11.92
1 Ton Mechanics Truck	3,520.00	22.00	34.58	1	56.58
Tool Cargo Trailer	3,202.50	20.02	2.00	1	22.02
Crew Passenger Bus	-	-	14.97	1	14.97
24 CY End Dump Truck (14,000 # dump trailer + semi tractor)	8,640.00	54.00	7.56	1	61.56
771 D Haul Truck (Komatsu HM400 (40 Ton)	14,000.00	87.50	48.68	1	136.18
777C Haul Truck (Komatsu HD465 (44 Ton)	15,000.00	93.75	80.74	1	174.49
Water Truck (4,000 gallon)	4,997.00	31.23	45.55	1	76.78
988F Loader (with forks) (Komatsu WA600-6 (8.4 yrd))	16,000.00	100.00	134.00	1	234.00
992D Loader (Komatsu WA800 (14.6 yrd))	27,000.00	168.75	101.90	1	270.65
D10R/10U Dozer (Komatsu D375A-5)	22,000.00	137.50	90.25	1	227.75
75D Challenger with Drill/Broadcast Seeder and Disc Harrowed	20,667.00	129.17	65.31	1	194.48
14H Motor Grader (Komatsu GD655-3C 14' Blade)	6,000.00	37.50	35.17	1	72.67
Padded Drum Compactor (CP-563C) (Bomag-BW 2/3-3/84")	4,400.00	27.50	25.10	1	52.60
Smooth Drum Compactor (CS-583-C) (Bomag-BW 211/84")	4,400.00	27.50	25.10	1	52.60
631 E Scraper	21,050.00	131.56	67.89	1	199.46
Backhoe (710D or equivalent)	4,600.00	28.75	54.52	1	83.27
235D Excavator (With shear and rammex) (330BL CAT Trackhoe w/shear)	33,600.00	210.00	42.57	1	252.57
14 Ton Boom Truck	6,080.00	38.00	30.45	1	68.45
150 Ton Crane	2,300.00	14.38	58.35	1	72.73
28 Ton Rough Terraine Crane	5,200.00	32.50	27.30	1	59.80
60 Foot Reach Man Lift	2,500.00	15.63	8.10	1	23.73
1 Ton Truck-mounted Welder/Cutting Torch	6,720.00	42.00	38.89	1	80.89
20kW Mobile Generator	1,680.00	10.50	9.96	1	20.46

 

AZ Mined Land Reclamation Plan Part 2 - Appendix A - Page 2

 

AZ Mined Land Reclamation Plan Part 2 - Appendix A - Page 3

 

Figure 30

Figure 31

Figure 32

Figure 33

Figure 34

Figure 35

Figure 36

Figure 37

Figure 38

Figure 39

AZ Mined Land Reclamation Plan Part 2 - Appendix A - Page 4

 

Figure 30

Figure 31

Figure 32

Figure 33

Figure 34

Figure 35

Figure 36

Figure 37

Figure 38

Figure 39

AZ Mined Land Reclamation Plan Part 2 - Appendix A - Page 5

 

AZ Mined Land Reclamation Plan Part 2 - Appendix B

 

Equipment Productivity
Augusta Resource Rosemont Project - Life of Mine
Caterpillar D11T Bulldozer, Universal Blade and Multi-shank

D10R-10U Dozer	Flat/ Downhill Terrain		Mildly Sloping Terrain (>3H:1V)		Steeply Sloping Terrain (<3H:1V)		Ripping/ Light Grading		Concrete Burial
Production Rate
Material Density	lb/cy	3,375		3,375		3,375	lb/cy	3,375		3,240
Average Dozing Distance	ft	250		250		250	ft	100		100
Maximum Production	cy/hr	1,300		1,300		1,300	cy/hr	1,850		1,850
Correction Factors
Operator	average	0.75	average	0.75	average	0.75	average	0.75	average	0.75
Material	Loose Stkpl	1.20	Loose Stkpl	1.20	Loose Stkpl	1.20	Grading	0.80	Hard Rubble	0.50
Job Efficiency	50 min/hr	0.83	50 min/hr	0.83	50 min/hr	0.83	40 min/hr	0.67	50 min/hr	0.83
Weight Correction		0.85		0.85		0.85		1.00		0.70
Grade Correction	Flat	1.00	3:1	0.90	2:1	0.75	Flat	1.00	Flat	1.00
Total Factor		0.63		0.57		0.48		0.40		0.22
Factored Rate	cy/hr	825		743		619	cy/hr	744		403

Material types taken from Caterpillar 2002 Handbook, Edition 32 and Caterpillar 2006 Handbook, Edition 36.

Equipment Productivity
Augusta Resource Rosemont Project - Life of Mine
Caterpillar 14H Motor Grader

14H Motor Grader		Borrow Material Production
Production Rate
	Operating Speed	mph	6.5
	Effective blade length	ft	11.3
	Width of Overlap	ft	2
	Maximum Production	acres/hr	7.33
Correction Factors
	Material	loose	1.00
	Job Efficiency		0.85
Total Factor			0.85
Factored Rate		acres/hr	6.23

Material types taken from Caterpillar 2002 Handbook, Edition 32 and Caterpillar 2006 Handbook, Edition 36.

Equipment Productivity
Augusta Resource Rosemont Project - Life of Mine
Caterpillar 992G Loader

992D Loader		Waste Rock Production
Production Rate
	Bucket Capacity	cy	12.50
Cycle Time1		min	0.65
Cycles Required		cycles	4.60
Total Load Time (assuming 777C Haul Truck)		min	2.99
1. Cycle Time includes load, dump, four reversals of direction, full cycle of hydraulics, and minimum travel. Material types taken from Caterpillar 2002 Handbook, Edition 32 and Caterpillar 2006 Handbook, Edition 36.

 

Equipment Productivity
Augusta Resource Rosemont Project - Life of Mine
Caterpillar 777C Haul Truck

777C Haul Truck		Haul to Waste Rock/Tails Production		Haul to Top of Facilities Production
Production Rate (992D)
	Loader Bucket Capacity	cy	12.50	cy	12.50
	Loader Cycle Time	min	0.65	min	0.65
Production Rate (777C)
	Truck Capacity	cy	57.50	cy	57.50
	Average haul Distance	ft	4,350.00	ft	1,750.00
Cycle Time
	Load Time	min	2.99	min	2.99
	Load Area Maneuver Time	min	0.80	min	0.80
	Dump Area Maneuver Time	min	1.20	min	1.20
	Loaded Haul	min	1.70	min	0.72
	Empty Haul	min	1.50	min	0.70
	Total Load/Haul time	min	8.19	min	6.41
	Maximum Production Rate	cy/hr	421.25	cy/hr	538.22
Correction Factors
	Operator	average	0.75	average	0.75
	Load Factor		1.00		1.00
	Job Efficiency	50 min/hr	0.83	50 min/hr	0.83
Total Correction Factor			0.62		0.62
Factored Production Rate		cy/hr	262	cy/hr	335

Material types taken from Caterpillar 2002 Handbook, Edition 32 and Caterpillar 2006 Handbook, Edition 36.

Equipment Productivity
Augusta Resource Rosemont Project - Life of Mine
Caterpillar 631E Scraper

631E Scraper		Borrow Material Production		Topsoil Production
Production Rate
	Capacity	cy	31.00	cy	31.00
	Average Haul Distance	ft	3,550	ft	6,000
	Grade	%	4	%	4
Cycle Time
	Load Time	min	0.80	min	0.80
	Spread Time	min	0.70	min	0.80
	Loaded Haul	min	1.50	min	3.75
	Empty Haul	min	2.25	min	2.50
	Total Cycle Time	hr	0.09	min	0.13
	Maximum Production Rate	cy/hr	354.3	cy/hr	236.9
Correction Factors
Material Operator		average	0.75	average	0.75
	Load Factor	Earth - Dry Packed	0.90	Earth - Dry Packed	0.90
	Job Efficiency	50 min/hr	0.83	50 min/hr	0.83
Total Correction Factor			0.56		0.56
Factored Production Rate		cy/hr	198.5	cy/hr	132.7

 

Equipment Productivity
Augusta Resource Rosemont Project - Life of Mine
Caterpillar CS-583C Smooth Drum Compactor

CS-583 Smooth Drum Compactor		Spent Ore Production
Production Rate
	Drum diameter	ft	7
	Maximum Speed	mph	8
	Maximum Production Rate	acres/hr	6.8
Correction Factors
	Operator	average	0.75
	Job Efficiency	50 min/hr	0.83
Total Correction Factor			0.62
Factored Production Rate		acre/hr	4.23

Material types taken from Caterpillar 2002 Handbook, Edition 32 and Caterpillar 2006 Handbook, Edition 36.

Equipment Productivity
Augusta Resource Rosemont Project - Life of Mine
Caterpillar CS-563C Padded Drum Compactor

CS-563 Padded Drum Compactor		Spent Ore Production
Production Rate
	Drum diameter	ft	7
	Maximum Speed	mph	8
	Maximum Production Rate	acres/hr	6.8
Correction Factors
	Operator	average	0.75
	Job Efficiency	50 min/hr	0.83
Total Correction Factor			0.62
Factored Production Rate		acre/hr	4.23

Material types taken from Caterpillar 2002 Handbook, Edition 32 and Caterpillar 2006 Handbook, Edition 36.

Equipment Productivity
Augusta Resource Rosemont Project - Life of Mine
Caterpillar Challenger 75D

Challenger 75D Tractor		Revegetation Production
Production Rate
	Track Width (each)	in	30
	Average Speed	mph	4
	Maximum Production Rate	acres/hr	2.4
Correction Factors
	Operator	average	0.75
	Job Efficiency	50 min/hr	0.83
Total Correction Factor			0.62
Factored Production Rate		acre/hr	1.51

Material types taken from Caterpillar 2002 Handbook, Edition 32 and Caterpillar 2006 Handbook, Edition 36.

AZ Mined Land Reclamation Plan Part 2 - Appendix C - Page 1

 

RECLAMATION COSTS

Earthwork Summary Table and Equipment Fleet
Augusta Resource Rosemont Project - Life of Mine
Walk-Away Cost Summary Table

Part 1

Task	Reclaim Area1 (acres)	Hazardous Materials Cost ($)2	Water Quality ($)2	Demolition/ Cleanup Cost ($)2	Equipment Cost ($)3	Mob/Demob Cost ($)	Labor Cost ($)3
Year -1	1,271.0	$235,200	$321,400	$5,264,000	$3,228,000	$43,200	$432,400
Year 1	1,038.5	$235,200	$321,400	$5,264,000	$4,366,400	$43,200	$613,000
Year 2	1,343.8	$235,200	$321,400	$5,264,000	$4,628,700	$43,200	$624,100
Year 3	1,572.4	$235,200	$321,400	$5,264,000	$5,308,700	$43,200	$713,500
Year 4	1,647.5	$235,200	$321,400	$5,264,000	$6,113,200	$43,200	$807,900
Year 5	2,067.1	$235,200	$321,400	$5,264,000	$6,756,900	$43,200	$895,800
Years 6-10 (total)	2,454.2	$235,200	$321,400	$5,264,000	$9,071,900	$43,200	$1,175,200
Year 11-15 (total)	2,568.9	$235,200		$5,264,000	$1,668,300	$43,200	$938,800
Year 16-20 (total)	2,743.1	$235,200		$5,264,000	$4,781,000	$43,200	$1,057,000
Post-operational period	434.3				$1,760,400		$283,800
Maximum acreage for the year.  Costs are for maximum cleanup possibly required - walk away scenario.  Costs include regrade of maximum disturbed acreage.

 

Part 2

Task	Reclaim Area1 (acres)	Revegetation Cost ($)3	Long-term Operation, Maintenance and Monitoring Cost ($)2	Subtotal Direct Cost ($)	Indirect Cost ($)	Total Cost ($)
Year -1	1,271.0	$1,016,100	$346,800	$10,887,100	$2,982,800	$13,869,900
Year 1	1,038.5	$901,000	$346,800	$12,091,000	$3,325,900	$15,416,900
Year 2	1,343.8	$1,200,900	3$46,800	$12,664,300	$3,481,800	$16,146,100
Year 3	1,572.4	$1,332,900	$346,800	$13,565,700	$3,734,100	$17,299,800
Year 4	1,647.5	$1,360,800	$346,800	$14,492,500	$3,993,800	$18,486,300
Year 5	2,067.1	$1,554,600	$346,800	$15,417,900	$4,252,400	$19,670,300
Years 6-10 (total)	2,454.2	$1,756,600	$346,800	$18,214,300	$5,035,400	$23,249,700
Year 11-15 (total)	2,568.9	$1,737,400	$346,800	$10,233,700	$2,857,000	$13,090,700
Year 16-20 (total)	2,743.1	$2,262,100	$346,800	$13,989,300	$3,882,800	$17,872,100
Post-operational period	434.3	$691,200	$346,800	$3,082,200	$860,600	$3,942,800
Maximum acreage for the year.   Costs are for maximum cleanup possibly required - walk away scenario.   Costs include regrade of maximum disturbed acreage.

 

 

Earthwork Summary Table and Equipment Fleet
Augusta Resource Rosemont Project - Life of Mine
Final Cost Summary Table

Part 1

Task	Reclaim Area1 (acres)	Hazardous Materials Cost ($)2	Water Quality ($)2	Demolition/ Cleanup Cost ($)3	Equipment Cost ($)	Mob/Demob4 Cost ($)	Labor Cost ($)
Year -1	-	$ --	$ --	$ --	$ --		$ --
Year 1	162	$ --	$ --	$ --	$518,600		$50,800
Year 2	187	$ --	$ --	$ --	$289,200		$29,000
Year 3	185	$ --	$ --	$ --	$286,400		$28,800
Year 4	130	$ --	$ --	$ --	$179,800		$18,000
Year 5	159	$ --	$ --	$ --	$325,500		$31,100
Years 6-10 (total)	495	$ --	$321,400	$ --	$1,007,500		$113,100
Year 11-15 (total)	435	$ --		$ --	$914,500		$123,400
Year 16-20 (total)	1,626	$235,200		$5,264,000	$4,651,300		$628,400
Post-operational period					$656,600		$80,500
TOTAL	3,378.9	$235,200	$321,400	$5,264,000	$8,829,400	$ --	$1,103,100
Reclaim acres incorporate only 135 acres of the pit (950 acres allocated in Plan of Operations) and 25% reclaim of roads and utility corridors until decisions are made on closure requirements Includes offsite disposal of chemicals, solutions evaporation, and three years of monitoring This includes a bid by Brandenberg Mob/Demob Cost excluded from actual costing, on-site equipment will be used.

 

Part 2

Task	Reclaim Area1 (acres)	Revegetation Cost ($)	Long-term Operation, Maintenance and Monitoring Cost ($)2	Subtotal Direct Cost ($)	Indirect Cost ($)	Total Cost ($)
Year -1	-	$ --	$ --	$ --	$ --	$ --
Year 1	162	$80,200	$ --	$649,600	$180,500	$830,100
Year 2	187	$205,100	$ --	$523,300	$144,200	$667,500
Year 3	185	$204,400	$ --	$519,600	$143,200	$662,800
Year 4	130	$148,700	$ --	$346,500	$95,400	$441,900
Year 5	159	$134,900	$ --	$491,500	$135,800	$627,300
Years 6-10 (total)	495	$301,500	$ --	$1,743,500	$482,100	$2,225,600
Year 11-15 (total)	435	$243,500	$ --	$1,281,400	$358,300	$1,639,700
Year 16-20 (total)	1,626	$991,100	$ --	$11,770,000	$3,240,700	$15,010,700
Post-operational period		$146,400	$346,800	$1,230,300	$340,200	$1,570,500
TOTAL	3,378.9	$2,455,800	$346,800	$18,555,700	$5,120,400	$23,676,100
Reclaim acres incorporate only 135 acres of the pit (950 acres allocated in Plan of Operations) and 25% reclaim of roads and utility corridors until decisions are made on closure requirements Includes offsite disposal of chemicals, solutions evaporation, and three years of monitoring This includes a bid by Brandenberg Mob/Demob Cost excluded from actual costing, on-site equipment will be used.

 

 

AZ Mined Land Reclamation Plan Part 2 - Appendix C - Page 2

 

Earthwork Summary Table and Equipment Fleet
Augusta Resource Rosemont Project - Life of Mine
Earthwork and Engineering Summary Table

Part 1

Task	Reclaim Area (acres)	Hazardous Materials Cost ($)	Water Quality ($)	Demolition/ Cleanup Cost ($)	Equipment Cost ($)	Mob/ Demob Cost ($)	Labor Cost ($)
Rosemont Open Pit	135.0				41,276		4,945
Revegetation of Buffer	440.4	-	-	-	69,372.1	-	10,936.7
Year -1	0.0				0.0	-	-
Year 1	0.0				0.0	-	-
Year 2	100.0				13,069.8	-	2,060.48
Year 3	100.0				13,069.8	-	2,060.48
Year 4	75.0				9,802.4	-	1,545.36
Year 5	50.0				6,534.9	-	1,030.24
Years 6-10	50.0				13,069.8	-	2,060.48
Year 11-15	25.0				3,267.5	-	515.12
Year 16-20	25.0				6,534.9	-	1,030.24
Post-operational period	15.4				4,023.0	-	634.24
Revegetation of Disturbed Areas		-	-	-	255,670.4	-	40,307.00
Year -1	483.1				126,267.4	-	19,906.33
Year 1	124.4				16,263.4	-	2,563.96
Year 2	86.1				11,248.5	-	1,773.36
Year 3	70.1				9,160.0	-	1,444.09
Year 4	54.8				7,163.6	-	1,129.35
Year 5	125.4				16,390.2	-	2,583.95
Years 6-10	249.3				65,154.3	-	10,271.72
Year 11-15	0.0				0.0	-	-
Year 16-20	0.0				0.0	-	-
Post-operational period	15.4				4,023.0	-	634.24
Perimeter Berm	402.0	-	-	-	1,340,816.55	-	133,203.24
Year -1	0.0				-	-	-
Year 1	130.5				433,641.55	-	42,989.67
Year 2	70.9				235,465.24	-	23,343.18
Year 3	71.8				238,722.20	-	23,666.06
Year 4	39.0				129,547.42	-	12,842.87
Year 5	53.3				177,205.45	-	17,567.51
Years 6-10	0.0				-	-	-
Year 11-15	0.0				-	-	-
Year 16-20	0.0				-	-	-
Post-operational period	36.5				126,234.68	-	12,793.95
Waste Rock Regrade	1,596.7	-	-	-	4,178,889.76	-	564,409.03
Year -1	0.0				0		0
Year 1	0.0				0		0
Year 2	0.0				0		0
Year 3	0.0				0		0
Year 4	0.0				0		0
Year 5	0.0				0		0
Years 6-10	0.0				0		0
Year 11-15	102.3				255,148		34,178
Year 16-20	1,349.3				3,542,627		478,729
Post-operational period	145.2				381,114		51,501
Waste Rock Storage - Top and Inside		-	-	-	22,954,383.32	-	3,098,712.72
Year -1	627.0				1,216,258		166,085
Year 1	389.0				1,141,560		152,706
Year 2	586.0				1,515,457		203,135
Year 3	722.0				1,724,179		231,442
Year 4	777.0				2,138,557		286,360
Year 5	1,059.0				2,464,587		330,989
Years 6-10	1,089.0				4,206,359		564,321
Year 11-15	2,324.0				5,316,071		714,174
Year 16-20	2,317.0				2,963,700		412,071
Post-operational period	232.4				267,655		37,431
Leach Pad		-	-	2,403	11,506,609.97	-	1,423,840.82
Year -1	73.0			2,403	534,511		65,927
Year 1	111.0			2,403	1,550,093		196,637
Year 2	149.0			2,403	1,344,366		162,679
Year 3	178.0			2,403	1,701,592		208,120
Year 4	199.0			2,403	1,995,201		245,843
Year 5	199.0			2,403	2,105,213		261,638
Years 6-10	212.0			2,403	2,275,634		282,996
Tailings	361.2	-	-	-	948,261.90	-	85,645.48
Year -1	0.0				0		0
Year 1	31.6				84,915		7,798
Year 2	15.9				40,672		3,598
Year 3	13.5				34,566		3,058
Year 4	15.8				40,442		3,578
Year 5	55.5				141,714		12,536
Years 6-10	196.0				526,354		48,334
Year 11-15	0.0				0		0
Year 16-20	0.0				0		0
Post-operational period	32.8				79,600		6,744
Tailings Top	538.8	-	-	-	1,148,504.65	-	155,339.13
Year -1	0.0				0		0
Year 1	0.0				0		0
Year 2	0.0				0		0
Year 3	0.0				0		0
Year 4	0.0				0		0
Year 5	0.0				0		0
Years 6-10	200.2				426,806		57,727
Year 11-15	307.8				656,089		88,738
Year 16-20	0.0				0		0
Post-operational period	30.8				65,609		8,874
Tailings - Top and Inside		-	-	-	4,265,435.17	-	564,903.84
Year -1	48.0				145,750		18,490
Year 1	212.0				368,343		48,322
Year 2	296.0				498,685		65,579
Year 3	377.0				620,886		81,798
Year 4	447.0				716,818		94,643
Year 5	485.0				817,223		107,467
Years 6-10	618.0				780,072		105,305
Year 11-15	180.0				204,658		27,941
Year 16-20	0.0				26,578		3,218
Post-operational period	61.8				86,420		12,140
Process Ponds	39.9	-	-	10,509.83	61,843.89	-	8,325.36
Year -1	0.0				0		0
Year 1	8.0				0		0
Year 2	0.0				0		0
Year 3	12.0				0		0
Year 4	0.0				0		0
Year 5	0.0				0		0
Years 6-10	8.0				29,026		3,907
Year 11-15	0.0				0		0
Year 16-20	12.0			10,510	32,818		4,418
Post-operational period	0.0				0		0
Roads	0.0				0		0
Brandenburg Bid Amount for all faciliities		205,520		5,077,954
Administration Building Area				3,845	0		0
Mine Shop/Warehouse Area		1,500			0		0
SX/EW Plant Site		3,000		5,640	0		0
Process ponds	0.0		321,424	88,692	61,844		8,325
Crusher/Ore Stockpile & Conveyor					0		0
Plant Site	4.0			16,151	960,587		129,009
Topsoil Stockpiles	200.0				75,601		10,779
Stormwater Basins	7.5				4,098		561
Miscellaneous Reclamation Costs		25,200		42,000		43,198	0
Total		235,220	321,424	5,264,014		43,198

AZ Mined Land Reclamation Plan Part 2 - Appendix C - Page 3

 

Earthwork Summary Table and Equipment Fleet
Augusta Resource Rosemont Project - Life of Mine

Earthwork and Engineering Summary Table

Part 2

Task	Reclaim Area (acres)	Revegetation Cost ($)	Long-term Operation, Maintenance and Monitoring Cost ($)	Subtotal Direct Cost ($)	Indirect Cost ($)	Total Cost ($)
Tailings	361.2	178,797.47	-	1,212,705	335,995	1,548,700
Year -1	0.0	0		0	0	0
Year 1	31.6	15,652		108,364	30,038	138,402
Year 2	15.9	7,880		52,150	14,440	66,591
Year 3	13.5	6,697		44,321	12,273	56,594
Year 4	15.8	7,836		51,856	14,359	66,214
Year 5	55.5	27,458		181,707	50,315	232,022
Years 6-10	196.0	97,020		671,708	186,194	857,902
Year 11-15	0.0	0		0	0	0
Year 16-20	0.0	0		0	0	0
Post-operational period	32.8	16,254		102,598	28,376	130,974
Tailings Top	538.8	266,721.35	-	1,570,565	439,586	2,010,152
Year -1	0.0	0		0	0	0
Year 1	0.0	0		0	0	0
Year 2	0.0	0		0	0	0
Year 3	0.0	0		0	0	0
Year 4	0.0	0		0	0	0
Year 5	0.0	0		0	0	0
Years 6-10	200.2	99,119		583,652	163,359	747,011
Year 11-15	307.8	152,366		897,193	251,116	1,148,310
Year 16-20	0.0	0		0	0	0
Post-operational period	30.8	15,237		89,719	25,112	114,831
Tailings - Top and Inside		1,348,776.00	-	6,179,115	1,724,851	7,903,966
Year -1	48.0	23,760		188,001	52,609	240,610
Year 1	212.0	104,940		521,605	145,665	667,270
Year 2	296.0	146,520		710,785	198,470	909,254
Year 3	377.0	186,615		889,299	248,291	1,137,590
Year 4	447.0	221,265		1,032,726	288,300	1,321,026
Year 5	485.0	240,075		1,164,765	325,233	1,489,999
Years 6-10	618.0	305,910		1,191,287	332,178	1,523,465
Year 11-15	180.0	89,100		321,699	89,653	411,352
Year 16-20	0.0	0		29,796	8,367	38,163
Post-operational period	61.8	30,591		129,151	36,085	165,236
Process Ponds	39.9	99,800.00	-	180,479	49,562	230,041
Year -1	0.0	0		0	0	0
Year 1	8.0	0		0	0	0
Year 2	0.0	0		0	0	0
Year 3	12.0	0		0	0	0
Year 4	0.0	0		0	0	0
Year 5	0.0	0		0	0	0
Years 6-10	8.0	39,800		72,733	20,029	92,762
Year 11-15	0.0	0		0	0	0
Year 16-20	12.0	60,000		107,746	29,533	137,279
Post-operational period	0.0	0		0	0	0
Roads	0.0	0		0	0	0
Brandenburg Bid Amount for all faciliities				5,283,474	55,490	5,338,964
Administration Building Area		0		3,845	1,038	4,883
Mine Shop/Warehouse Area		0		1,500	405	1,905
SX/EW Plant Site		0		8,640	2,333	10,972
Process ponds	0.0	99,800		580,085	157,456	737,541
Crusher/Ore Stockpile & Conveyor		0		0	0	0
Plant Site	4.0	83,160		1,188,907	333,906	1,522,813
Topsoil Stockpiles	200.0	99,000		185,380	51,131	236,511
Stormwater Basins	7.5	743		5,401	1,514	6,915
Miscellaneous Reclamation Costs			346,800	457,198	123,443	580,641
Total			$ 346,800