Cooperating Federal Agencies
Air Force, 162d Fighter Airwing
Army Corps of Engineers
USDI Bureau of Land Management

Cooperating State Agencies
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources
Arizona Department of Water Resources
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Arizona Geological Survey
Arizona State Land Department
Arizona State Mine Inspector
Arizona State Parks

Meeting Notes

Cooperating Federal Agencies
Air Force, 162d Fighter Airwing
Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, Regulatory Division
USDA Forest Service, Coronado National Forest
USDI Bureau of Land Management

Cooperating State Agencies
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources
Arizona Department of Water Resources
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Arizona Geological Survey
Arizona State Land Department
Arizona State Mine Inspector
Arizona State Parks

Alternatives Shared with Cooperating Agencies

NOTE: THIS IS A DRAFT DELIBERATIVE DOCUMENT

ALTERNATIVE or ALTERNATIVE ELEMENT	SOURCE	ISSUE DRIVER(S)	NOTES
Proposed Action	Rosemont Copper Company (Rosemont Copper)	NA	Fully described in the 2007 Mine Plan of Operations and supporting documents
No Action	Council on Environmental Quality Regulations	NA	Baseline for effects
Rosemont Copper’s Alternative Responsive to Public Comments Includes: • Modifying stormwater management around the tailings facility and placing additional drains through the waste and tails (instead of the Central Drain); increasing the number and size of stormwater retention ponds; realigning the pit diversion for water management in area of upper pit elevation • Reconfiguring key plant facilities to better contain contaminants in the event of failure and enhancing facility stability • Tailing storage staging to consolidate water management system • Reorienting haul roads (may only be mitigation) • Changing access road alignment •Phasing the placement of tailings • Realigning west service road and utility corridor to maintain recreation access Modifying toe of the waste rock and tailings facilities to avoid some heritage resource sites	Rosemont Copper (July 2008)	Air Heritage Recreation Water
Tailings facility located in Sycamore Canyon. Tailings would be conveyed via a slurry line and then dewatered at a filtering facility in the canyon. Rock to create the buttress around the tailings would be quarried in the vicinity. Recovered water would be piped back over the ridge. Waste and heap leach facility located in Upper Barrel and Upper McCleary canyons.	Public Interdiscipli nary Team (IDT)	Heritage Recreation Riparian Visual
Tailings facility in Scholefield Canyon, with waste rock and heap leach facility in McCleary Canyon	Public & Cooperators	Heritage Recreation Riparian Visual
Tailings and waste rock facilities only in Barrel Canyon, leaving McCleary Canyon open.		Riparian Visual
One right-of-way for utilities and roads	IDT	Land Use
Conveyor belt transport of tails	Public & IDT	Air?
Compensatory land designation	Cooperators	Recreation Riparian Vegetation Wildlife and Habitat
Dam in Barrel Canyon	Public & IDT		This will eliminate water being released into barrel drainage and provides no operational value. However, Arizona Department of Water Resources has never given the U.S. Forest Service surface water rights; reservoir could harbor invasive species.
Hydrological conveyance of wet ore to west side	Public	Transportation
Expand size of tailings filter plant	Rosemont Copper		May not be an alternative element
Realign East Access Road to facilitate overlook of project site	Rosemont Copper
Relocate raffinate pond to use gravity flow	Rosemont Copper
Relocate thickeners to minimize potential for differential settling	Rosemont Copper	Noise
Sequenced blasting	Rosemont Copper		Likely to be mitigation
Submerge fill for fuel tanks	Rosemont Copper	Air	Likely to be mitigation
Place tails and waste in a horseshoe shape around Barrel Drainage	Interdisciplinary Team (IDT)	IDT	In order for there to be sufficient volume, the piles would need to extend to State Route (SR) 83. If all of the high land is eliminated as a water source, the riparian area in Barrel Canyon would become starved and die. The impacts of this alternative would likely be more than the Proposed Action (IDT meeting).
Relocate tails and waste to west side of ridge	Public & IDT	IDT Rosemont Copper	Not financially feasible to haul waste rock over the ridge. Furthermore, Rosemont does not control enough claim area on the western slope of the Santa Rita Mountains to accommodate the volume of both waste rock and tailings.
Create a dome around project	IDT	IDT Rosemont Copper	Technologically infeasible. This would require the construction of a structure that would be more than 1 mile in diameter. No such structure has been engineered (IDT Meeting).
Electric/trolley system or rail out of area	IDT	Rosemont Copper	Would require right-of-way access for private and state lands from the Coronado National Forest boundary to near Interstate 10 (I-10). The line would result in impacts above and beyond what is currently proposed (IDT Meeting).
Government/U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) purchases the mine for U.S. future consumption	IDT		Does not meet the Purpose and Need and outside Forest Supervisor authority. This would likely require an act of Congress (IDT Meeting & Rosemont response table dated 4-22-09).
Mining through the ridge	IDT	IDT Rosemont Copper	Would likely result in greater impacts to all issues of concern. Rosemont believes this to be Infeasible because of the additional requirements to blast, haul, and dump substantially more waste rock (Rosemont response table dated 4-22-09).
Remove ridge behind the pit	IDT	IDT Rosemont Copper	Would result in greater waste rock to dispose of and a larger footprint and would be visible from Sahuarita and Green Valley (IDT). Furthermore, Rosemont believes this is not economically feasible because the mineralization does not extend west of the pit (Rosemont response table dated 4-22-09).
Keep all waste rock and tailings out of canyon bottoms	IDT	IDT	Would result in placing waste rock next to SR 83
Move electric underground	IDT	Rosemont Copper	This would result in greater impacts as a result of increased ground disturbance. Furthermore, the line would need to be cooled by oil and would pose a greater potential for environmental damage (Rosemont response table dated 4-22-09).
Relocate SR 83 or portions of it	IDT	Rosemont Copper	Outside the jurisdiction of the Forest Service and Rosemont. Arizona Department of Transportation has scheduled changes not associated with this project (Rosemont response table dated 4-22-09).
Shorten operation	IDT	Rosemont Copper	Not financially feasible. The cost to Rosemont would increase $500+ million for equipment such as shovels, haul trucks, milling equipment, additional infrastructure, etc. This would also result in the need for an increased footprint for the plant facilities (IDT meeting).
Use Central Arizona Project (CAP) water with groundwater backup	IDT	Rosemont Copper	Rosemont does not have water rights associated with CAP and can only purchase excess water allocations. Furthermore, Rosemont has already acquired legal water rights to their well field (Rosemont response table dated 4-22-09).
Use Old Sonoita Hwy	IDT	IDT	Would not alleviate use of the SR 83/I-10 interchange and much of SR 83 from the proposed mine to I-10. Furthermore, the character of Old Sonoita Highway is more of a rural arterial that serves rural homes (IDT Meeting and Rosemont response table dated 4-22-09).
Wet tailings	IDT	IDT	Would increase impacts to all significant issues identified during scoping, especially water resources. Furthermore, wet tailings would require substantially more area for the tailings facility (IDT Meeting).
Alternate mine site or ore bodies/ mine in a different area	Public	IDT Rosemont Copper	Rosemont has a legal right to access the minerals associated with their claims. Therefore, this alternative does not meet the Purpose and Need. Furthermore, the Forest Service is required to consider all proposals for mining that meet the requirements under 36 CFR 228(a) (IDT Meeting & Rosemont response table dated 4-22-09).
Alternative processing technologies	Public	IDT	This alternative is too vague to address in detail. However, Rosemont has proposed to use contemporary mining technologies such as dry stack tailings (Rosemont response table dated 4-22-09).
Alternative uses of public lands	Public	IDT	Rosemont possesses legal mining claims where the project is proposed. Therefore, the Forest Service lacks the authority to deny a legally permittable mine with reasonable mitigation (IDT Meeting and Rosemont response table dated 4-22-09).
Create a lake with CAP water on west side of Santa Rita Mountains for recreation and process water	Public	Rosemont Copper	Excess CAP allocations have already been purchased for ground water recharge, and lakes would not create recharge—they would create a surface area for evaporation (Rosemont response table dated 4-22-09).
Create completely separate road access	Public	IDT	Rosemont is proposing to construct a separate access road from SR 83 (IDT Meeting).
Extend mine project to 40 to 50 years/modified timetable	Public IDT	Rosemont Copper	This would increase the duration of most impacts rather than mitigate them. Furthermore, this is considered financially infeasible because the life span of most mining equipment is approximately 20 years. Therefore, this would result in the need to buy new trucks and processing equipment halfway through the life of the project (IDT Meeting).
In situ mining	Public	Rosemont Copper	This is technically infeasible because it will not work on a sulfide ore body. Furthermore, this technique has never been commercially proven (Rosemont response table dated 4-22-09).
Limited project—limit to fee simple and patented mining claims	Public	Rosemont Copper	The largest contiguous parcel of land consists of a combination of both patented land and Bureau of Land Management land and is located north and west of the pit area. After evaluating storage volume of this area, it would fit, at the most, 852 million cubic yards. This is insufficient for this operation (Rosemont letter dated 5-29-09 with figures in support of statement).
Mechanical conveyance of ore to rail head/rail or trolley transport of ore, spoils, and tailings out of area	Public IDT	Rosemont Copper	Technically infeasible because no existing conveyor technology exists for the size conveyor that would be needed. Furthermore, Rosemont does not control right-of-way or land from the proposed project site to the nearest rail head in southern Tucson. Financially infeasible; may not be possible to get approval for pipeline to connect at current port, cost prohibitive to acquire the right-of-way (IDT Meeting).
Mine in a different location	Public		Rosemont has a legal right to access the minerals associated with their claims. Furthermore, the Forest Service is required to consider all proposals for mining that meet the requirements under 36 CFR 228.
On-site high-pressure high-temperature leaching technology	Public	Rosemont Copper	This is technically infeasible because it will not work on a sulfide ore body. Furthermore, this technique has never been commercially proven (Rosemont response table dated 4-22-09).
Reclamation—create a lake out of pit	Public		A lake created in the pit during reclamation would not be safe for recreational boaters. Therefore, it would serve no purpose (Rosemont response table dated 4-22-09).
Reclamation with solar farm	Public	Rosemont Copper	Rosemont willing to explore this idea; however, this alternative element does not create a trade-off between impacts to different resources (Rosemont response table dated 4-22-09).
Relocate tails and overburden to other Green Valley mines and Twin Buttes Mine	Public	Rosemont Copper	Impractical because of distance, increased impact to Santa Rita Experimental Range, energy costs, and lack of existing conveyor technology. Furthermore, these mines are controlled by competing mining companies (Rosemont response table dated 4-22-09).
Remove all tails from public land	Public	Rosemont Copper	Not financially feasible because of the volume of tailings (Rosemont response table dated 4-22-09)
Reopen closed copper mines	Public	Rosemont Copper	Rosemont does not own any of these other operations (Rosemont response table dated 4-22-09).
Ship tailings to Canada	Public	Rosemont Copper	This is not financially feasible
Sublevel caving mining/vertical crater retreat	Public	Rosemont Copper	The type of ore body owned by Rosemont is not conducive to this type of mining (Rosemont response table dated 4-22-09).
Suspend mining during high winds, extreme drought, excellent “seeing conditions,” and/or at night/daytime operations only	Public IDT	Rosemont Copper	This is technically infeasible because machines cannot be turned off easily/daily. Processes are continuous-flow processes that are not amenable to being shut down daily. Furthermore, because of large capital costs, it is financially infeasible not to operate the mine 24 hours a day. This is the standard practice for large, open pit mines (Rosemont response table dated 4-22-09).
Switch proposed primary and secondary access roads/loop road circulation system/in from SR 83 out through Santa Rita Road/expand and use secondary access	Public IDT	IDT Rosemont Copper	Impacts resulting from the combination of the construction of a road over Gun Site Pass sufficient to support primary access and impacts resulting from additional traffic through the town of Sahuarita would likely create additional impacts on top of what is already proposed. The west access road would have to be completely upgraded to handle loaded traffic in either direction. The overall impact of this would be greater than the proposal (IDT Meeting and Rosemont response table dated 4-22-09).
Tunnel through the Santa Rita Mountains	Public	Rosemont Copper	While some utilities could be located in a tunnel through the upper portion of the Santa Rita Mountains, it would be cost prohibitive to mine the ore body via a tunnel (IDT Meeting & Rosemont response table dated 4-22-09).
Underground mine	Public	Rosemont Copper	Ore grades are not high enough to sustain economic viable underground operation. This would also not significantly reduce the amount of tails or waste (Rosemont response table dated 4-22-09).
Use Box Canyon road	Public	IDT	Construction of a road in Box Canyon, suitable for large trucks, would likely disproportionately increase impacts to popular recreation areas, sensitive riparian areas and animal species, and population centers such as Green Valley (IDT Meeting).
Use CAP water	Public	Rosemont Copper	CAP is not a reliable source. Outside the jurisdiction of the Forest Service to require this of Rosemont. Furthermore, Rosemont has already acquired legal water rights to their well field (IDT Meeting and Rosemont response table dated 4-22-09).
Use Helvetia Mine road	Public	IDT	Impacts resulting from the combination of the construction of a road over Gun Site Pass sufficient to support primary access and impacts resulting from additional traffic through the town of Sahuarita would likely create additional impacts beyond what is already proposed (Cooperators and IDT Meeting).
Use high-pressure/high-temperature leaching	Public	Rosemont Copper	Because of low acid generation (pyrite) of the ore, it is not amenable to the high-pressure concentrate leach method (Rosemont response table dated 4-22-09).
Use ocean water for operations	Public	Rosemont Copper	This would require infrastructure that would make the project financially infeasible (Rosemont response table dated 4-22-09).
Use of solar, wind, natural gas, or geothermal energy	Public	Rosemont Copper	Tucson Electric Power is required to use 15% renewable energy by 2015 (?) and Rosemont has proposed solar in the Mine Plan of Operations (Rosemont response table dated 4-22-09).
Use Rosemont Junction road	Public	Rosemont Copper
Use sinking mine shafts to subterranean levels	Public	Rosemont Copper	Not suitable for this type of ore body; the ore is disseminated, rather than in veins or isolated zones (Rosemont response table dated 4-22-09).
Land Exchange	Public & IDT	IDT Rosemont Copper	Does not meet the Purpose and Need and does not decrease impacts. May also be outside Forest Supervisor signing authority (IDT Meeting and Rosemont response table dated 4-22-09)
Rail transport of ore, spoils, and tailings	Public & IDT	Rosemont Copper	Financially infeasible; may not be possible to get approval for pipeline to connect at current port, cost prohibitive to acquire the right-of-way (IDT Meeting).
Use gray water	Public & IDT	Rosemont Copper	Not able to gain legal access to this water; Sahuarita uses theirs, and Green Valley leased all of theirs to private party for foreseeable future (IDT Meeting).
Use waste rock for industrial uses	Public & IDT	Rosemont Copper	Has been tried at Sacaton, and there has not been enough demand to reduce any impacts (IDT Meeting).
Backfill, continuous backfill, or partial backfill	Public, Cooperators, IDT, & tribes	IDT Rosemont Copper	It will take 20 years to excavate the pit, 15 to refill; effects on most resources will increase in duration, result in questionable stability, and increase resource use (fuel); concurrent reclamation would not occur, and effects are likely to be worse than Proposed Action. Furthermore, the configuration of the ore body does not allow for a continuous backfill like a coal bed (IDT Meeting and Rosemont response table dated 4-22-09).
Use Cienega Creek as primary water source	Public	IDT Rosemont Copper	Rosemont does not have water rights associated with Cienega Creek. Rosemont has already acquired legal water rights to their well field. Furthermore, this would likely impact habitat for the endangered southwestern willow flycatcher and Gila topminnow. Other sensitive species could be impacted as well (IDT Meeting).

NOTE: THIS IS A DRAFT DELIBERATIVE DOCUMENT

Project Website			John Able

	Discussion:
	Discussion: Website developed to serve 3 audiences (interdisciplinary team, cooperating agencies, and public)
	Demonstration of β-test version of www.RosemontEIS.us website navigation, functions, and demonstration content
	Demonstration of β-test version of searchable comments database navigation, functions, and demonstration content
	Discussion of web-based social media considerations and opportunities
	Cooperating agencies requested inclusion of a blog forum that would be for the exclusive use of cooperating agencies
	Cooperating agencies requested the Reclamation Plan be posted to the website with a cross reference to/from the “Technical Reports” sub-tab

	Action items:
	1.	Requested cooperating agencies access and test functionality of website and searchable comments database and report findings (positive and negative), desired changes and modifications, additions, deletions, and any other comments to the webmasters (John Able and Barbara Schneider) via “John Able’s Blog” on the home page of the website
	2.	Requested cooperating agencies not share access to the website with other members of their agencies or the public before the Forest Service releases the website to public access in July 2009
	3.	Requested cooperating agencies that need additional access accounts for the website notify the Forest Service Cooperating Agency Liaison with the name and e-mail address for each additional account

EIS Status			Teresa Ann Ciapusci
	Discussion:
	Overview of interdisciplinary team progress to date
	Reminder that schedule for milestones remains unchanged

Open Discussion			Teresa Ann Ciapusci

	Suggested topics for future Coordination Meetings:
	Field trip to view examples of successful reclamation efforts Alternative routes for utility corridors, particularly electrical transmission routes Discussion of lessons learned in previous large-scale mining proposals that could improve efficiency Share permitting and other regulatory roles of cooperating agencies to further mutual understanding of decision space and roles of the various agencies Training for cooperating agencies on the NEPA process Discussion of the assumptions used in determining the types of technical studies that underlay the environmental analysis and how those assumptions are documented in the Administrative Record

Agency	Participant(s) Please Print Legibly
Tohono O’odham Nation
Air Force, 162d Fighter Airwing
Army Corps of Engineers
USDI BLM	Linda Hughes
AZ Dept of Mines and Mineral Resources	Madan M. Singh
AZ Dept of Environmental Quality	Dennis Turner
AZ Game and Fish Dept	John Windes
AZ Geological Survey	Jon Spencer
AZ State Land Dept	David Jacobs
AZ Dept of Water Resources	Laura Grignano
AZ State Mine Inspector
AZ State Parks	Robert Casavant
AZ Dept of Transportation
Pima County	Nicole Fyffe Julia Fonseca
Town of Sahuarita	Orlanthia Henderson Joe Marques
City of Tucson	Nicole Urban-Lopez

Tribal Governments	Invitation Date	MOU Status
Tohono O’dham Nation (including Tribal Liaison Coordination)	07/10/08	In Review
Federal Agencies	Invitation Date	Response
Dept. of the Air Force, 162d Fighter Airwing	07/10/08	MOU 3/27/09
Dept. of Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District	07/10/08	Letter 8/21/08¹
Environmental Protection Agency	07/10/08	Declined 10/14/08
USDI Bureau of Land Management, Tucson Field Office	07/10/08	In Review
Arizona State Agencies	Invitation Date	Response
Arizona Dept. of Environmental Quality	07/18/08	MOU 5/19/09
Arizona Dept. of Mines and Mineral Resources	07/18/08	MOU 4/14/09
Arizona Dept. of Transportation	07/18/08	In Review
Arizona Game and Fish Department	07/18/08	In Review
Arizona State Land Dept.	07/18/08	MOU 5/28/09
Local Governments	Invitation Date	Response
Pima County	07/18/08	MOU 6/9/09
Town of Sahuarita	10/09/08	In Review

Federal Agencies	Inquiry Date	MOU Status
Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Arizona Division	07/22/08	Declined 8/26/08
Dept. of Energy, Western Area Power Administration	07/18/08	Declined 7/31/08
USDI Bureau of Reclamation	07/10/08	Declined 9/12/08
USDI U.S. Geological Survey	07/18/08	Declined 8/14/08
Dept. of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration	07/18/08	Declined 8/06/08
USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians	07/15/08	Declined 9/04/08²
Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration	07/16/08	Unknown
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service	07/18/08	Unknown
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation	07/14/08	Declined 5/11/09
Arizona State Agencies	Inquiry Date	Response
Arizona Dept. of Administration, Risk Management	07/18/08	Declined 5/18/09
Arizona Dept. of Public Safety	07/18/08	Declined 8/15/08
Arizona Dept. of Water Resources	07/18/08	In Review
Arizona Geological Survey	07/18/08	MOU 4/20/09
Arizona State Historic Preservation Office	07/22/08	Declined 7/31/08
Arizona State Mine Inspector	07/18/08	In Review
Arizona State Parks	07/18/08	In Review
Arizona Water Banking Authority	07/22/08	Declined 5/11/09
Local Governments	Inquiry Date	Response
City of Tucson	07/21/08	In Review
Cochise County	07/21/08	Declined 6/08/09
Santa Cruz County	07/18/08	Declined 8/29/08

29 June 2009

2009 June 18 - Agenda

Rosemont Copper Project
Cooperating Agency

Coordination Meeting

6/18/2009
9:30 AM to 12:00 PM
Federal Building
300 West Congress
Tucson, Arizona

Conference Room 4B

Agenda

Meeting Notes

Project Website

John Able

Discussion:

Action items:

EIS Status

Teresa Ann Ciapusci

Discussion:

Open Discussion

Teresa Ann Ciapusci

Alternatives Shared with Cooperating Agencies

2009 June 18 - Attendance Record

Rosemont Copper Project
Cooperating Agency Meeting
June 18, 2009

2009 June 18 - Cooperating Agency Status

ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT EIS
COOPERATING AGENCY STATUS (6/18/09)

2009 June 18 - Rights of Mining Claimants

29 June 2009

2009 June 18 - Agenda

Rosemont Copper Project Cooperating Agency

Coordination Meeting

6/18/2009 9:30 AM to 12:00 PM Federal Building 300 West Congress Tucson, Arizona

Conference Room 4B

Agenda

Meeting Notes

Project Website

John Able

Discussion:

Action items:

EIS Status

Teresa Ann Ciapusci

Discussion:

Open Discussion

Teresa Ann Ciapusci

Alternatives Shared with Cooperating Agencies

2009 June 18 - Attendance Record

Rosemont Copper Project Cooperating Agency Meeting June 18, 2009

2009 June 18 - Cooperating Agency Status

ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT EIS COOPERATING AGENCY STATUS (6/18/09)

2009 June 18 - Rights of Mining Claimants

Rosemont Copper Project
Cooperating Agency

6/18/2009
9:30 AM to 12:00 PM
Federal Building
300 West Congress
Tucson, Arizona

Rosemont Copper Project
Cooperating Agency Meeting
June 18, 2009

ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT EIS
COOPERATING AGENCY STATUS (6/18/09)