DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Environmental Assessment Final Environmental Assessment Arizona Department of Water Resources Recommendation for the Reallocation of Non- Indian Agricultural Priority Central Arizona Project Water in Accordance with the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2004 1.1.1 1.1.2 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Lower Colorado Region Phoenix Area Office Glendale Arizona November 2019 Mission Statements The Department of the Interior conserves and manages the Nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage for the benefit and enjoyment of the American people, provides scientific and other information about natural resources and natural hazards to address societal challenges and create opportunities for the American people, and honors the Nation’s trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities to help them prosper. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Page i Table of Contents CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE AND NEED........................................................................................ 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................... 1 1.2.1 Groundwater ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2.2 Central Arizona Project............................................................................................. 2 1.2.3 ADWR’s Reallocation Recommendation Process .................................................... 3 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION........................................................................................................... 3 1.4 PURPOSE AND NEED .......................................................................................................... 5 1.5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...................................................................................................... 6 CHAPTER 2. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ............................................... 8 2.1 FORMULATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES ....................................................... 8 2.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE (REJECTION OF ADWR RECOMMENDATION) ......................... 8 2.3 PROPOSED ACTION (APPROVAL OF ADWR RECOMMENDATION) ..................................... 8 CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ..................................................................................................................... 10 3.1 POTENTIAL CONNECTED ACTIONS .................................................................................. 10 3.2 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS .................................................................................................... 12 3.2.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions .................................... 12 3.3 LAND USE ....................................................................................................................... 17 3.3.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................. 17 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................. 21 3.3.3 Cumulative Effects.................................................................................................. 22 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................ 23 3.4.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................. 23 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................. 31 3.4.3 Cumulative Effects.................................................................................................. 33 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................... 34 3.5.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................. 34 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................. 35 3.5.3 Cumulative Effects.................................................................................................. 35 3.6 WATER RESOURCES ........................................................................................................ 36 3.6.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................. 37 3.6.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................. 47 3.6.3 Cumulative Effects.................................................................................................. 50 3.7 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES ......................................................................................... 53 3.7.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................. 53 3.7.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................. 59 3.7.3 Cumulative Effects.................................................................................................. 61 Page ii 3.8 RESOURCES CONSIDERED BUT NOT AFFECTED ............................................................... 61 3.8.1 Air Quality .............................................................................................................. 62 3.8.2 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................... 62 3.8.3 Recreation and Visual Resources ............................................................................ 62 3.8.4 Indian Trust Assets (ITAs)...................................................................................... 63 CHAPTER 4. AGENCIES, TRIBES, AND PERSONS CONSULTED ................................ 64 CHAPTER 5. REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 66 FIGURE 1. PROJECT AREA MAP.………………………………………………………….. 4 FIGURE 2. BIOTIC COMMUNITY MAP…………………………………………..……… 25 FIGURE 3. PROPOSED RECIPIENTS WITHIN PHOENIX AMA……………………… 40 FIGURE 4. PROPOSED RECIPIENTS WITHIN PINAL AMA………………………….. 41 FIGURE 5. PROPOSED RECIPIENTS WITHIN TUCSON AMA……………………….. 42 TABLE 1. LIST OF PROPOSED RECIPIENTS AND THEIR RECOMMENDED ALLOCATION…………………………………………………………………………………. 9 TABLE 2. LAND OWNERSHIP AND USES IN THE PHOENIX AMA…………………. 18 TABLE 3. LAND OWNERSHIP AND USES IN THE PINAL AMA……………………... 19 TABLE 4. LAND OWNERSHIP AND USES IN THE TUCSON AMA………................... 20 TABLE 5. FEDERALLY LISTED, PROPOSED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES, DESIGNATED OR PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITATS, WITHIN PHOENIX, PINAL, AND TUCSON AMAs, IN ARIZONA…..…………………………………………………... 28 TABLE 6. PROPOSED RECIPIENT SUMMARY………………………………………… 39 TABLE 7. HISTORIC AND PROJECTED POPULATIONS – AMAs AND PROPOSED RECIPIENTS……………………………………………………………….…………………. 54 TABLE 8. NON-WHITE AND HISPANIC POPULATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES, ARIZONA, COUNTIES AND COMMUNITIES RECEIVING REALLOCATED WATER………………...……………………………………………………………………… 56 TABLE 9. ECONOMIC ATTRIBUTES FOR THE UNITED STATES, ARIZONA, COUNTIES AND COMMUNITIES RECEIVING REALLOCATED WATER, 2009- 2010…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 57 APPENDIX A. PROPOSED RECIPIENT APPLICATIONS APPENDIX B. ADWR EVALUATION PROCESS AND CRITERIA APPENDIX C. PUBLIC SCOPING NEWLETTER APPENDIX D. PROPOSED RECIPIENT MEETING LETER AND AGENDA APPENDIX E. NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE DRAFT EA APPENDIX F. DRAFT EA COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Page iii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ADWR Arizona Department of Water Resources AFA acre-feet annually AGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department AMA Active Management Area Apache Junction WUCFD Apache Junction Water Utilities Community Facilities District ASM Arizona State Museum ASU Arizona State University AWSA Arizona Water Settlements Act BA Biological Assessment BCPA Boulder Canyon Project Act BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs BLM Bureau of Land Management bls below land surface CAGRD Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District CAIDD Central Arizona Irrigation and Drainage District CAP Central Arizona Project CAWCD Central Arizona Water Conservation District CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CH Critical Habitat Code Groundwater Code Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CWA Clean Water Act Decree 1964 Arizona v. California decree DSI demand and supply imbalance EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO Executive Order EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended ESRV East Salt River Valley FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FR Federal Register FWCA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service GSF groundwater savings facilities IDD Irrigation and Drainage District INA Irrigation Non-Expansion Area Page iv ITAs Indian Trust Assets LBDCP Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan Listed species federally listed species under the ESA, as amended LTSC long-term storage credits MAFA million acre-feet annually M&I municipal and industrial MDWID
Load more

Recommended publications
  • View Annual Report
    PROVING OUR METTLE 2015 Annual Report Freeport-McMoRan Inc. (FCX) is a natural resources company with headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona. FCX operates large, long-lived, geographically diverse assets with significant proven and probable reserves of copper, gold, molybdenum, cobalt, oil and natural gas. FCX is the world’s largest publicly traded copper producer, the world’s largest producer of molybdenum, and a significant gold, oil and natural gas producer. FCX’s portfolio of metal assets includes the Grasberg minerals district in Indonesia, one of the world’s largest copper and gold deposits; significant mining operations in North and South America, including the large-scale Morenci minerals district in Arizona and the Cerro Verde operation in Peru; and the Tenke Fungurume minerals district in the Democratic Republic of Congo. FCX’s portfolio of oil and natural gas assets includes growth potential in the Deepwater Gulf of Mexico, established oil production facilities onshore and offshore California, large onshore natural gas resources in the Haynesville shale in Louisiana, natural gas production from the Madden area in central Wyoming, and a position in the Inboard Lower Tertiary/Cretaceous natural gas trend onshore in South Louisiana. During 2015, FCX took actions to enhance its financial position in response to lower market prices for its primary commodities. Current market conditions and uncertainty about the timing of economic and commodity price recovery requires FCX to continue taking actions to strengthen its financial position, reduce debt and re-focus its portfolio of assets. FCX’s business strategy is focused on its position as a leading global copper producer.
    [Show full text]
  • Sierrita Mine from Mine to Me How Copper Ore Becomes Copper Wire
    Sierrita Mine From Mine to Me How copper ore becomes copper wire Arizona Copper Mines 3 Copper Sulfide Ore 5 Copper Oxide Ore 8 Exploration 11 Open Pit Mining 22 Crushing and Milling 37 Flotation 46 Smelting 54 Leaching Oxide Ore 71 2012 Heap Leaching 76 by Jan C. Rasmussen, Ph.D. Solvent Extraction 82 Electrowinning 87 Fabricating - Rod Mill 96 Electrorefining 100 Reclamation 112 Uses of Copper 118 2 Arizona Copper Mines • Bagdad • Bisbee • Carlota • Hayden Smelter • Johnson Camp • Miami • Mineral Park • Mission • Morenci • Pinto Valley • Ray • Resolution • Rosemont X San Manuel • Safford • San Manuel • Sierrita X Bisbee • Silver Bell • Tohono 3 Copper sulfide ore and copper oxide ore are processed in different ways. Exploration Mining Concentrating Sulfide Ore Copper Products Smelting To Customer Rod, Cake, and Cathode Oxide Ore Leaching Solvent Extraction Electrowinning Refining Copper Anodes to Texas Copper Product to Customer (Ray and Silver Bell) 4 Cathode Sulfide ore: Chalcopyrite & Bornite Chalcopyrite Chalcopyrite can be called copper fool’s gold. It is made of copper, iron, and sulfur. It is a brassy yellow, metallic mineral and it is very heavy. Chalcopyrite is not as hard as pyrite, which is called fool’s gold. Chalcopyrite will not scratch glass, but will scratch a copper penny. Pyrite will scratch glass. Chalcopyrite is also a brighter yellow than pyrite. It often tarnishes to a blue-green, iridescent color on weathered surfaces. Chalcopyrite is the main copper sulfide ore. Chalcocite Bornite is also known as Peacock Copper because of the blue-green tarnish. On freshly broken surfaces, it is Chalcocite is a sooty black, bronze colored.
    [Show full text]
  • Pima County, Arizona | Case Studies
    FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT MULTI-STAKEHOLDER GROUP 06/10/2016 Pima County, Arizona | Case Studies Copper is a major industrial metal used in construction, electronics, transportation, industrial machinery, and consumer products. In 2014, the U.S. was the world’s fourth- largest copper producer, mining 1.13 million tons of copper worth approximately $9.7 billion.i Of the five major copper-producing states (Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Nevada, and Montana), Arizona increased production the most in 2014; its copper output totaled 893,000 metric tons, representing 66% of the national total.ii Copper represented 89% of the value of mining in Arizona.iii If Arizona were a country, it would be the seventh largest copper producer in the world.iv Greenlee and Pima counties generated the majority of that production. Geology and history In Pima County, much like nearby Greenlee County, copper mining began in the 1870s. Mining activity in Pima County flourished in the late nineteenth century, particularly as the arrival of the Southern Pacific Railroad brought increased commerce and traffic to the region. The copper-mining industry followed a series of boom-and-bust cycles throughout the following decades, with particular spikes during the two world wars, when demand soared. Today, copper output in Pima County is driven by operations at three open-pit mines: Sierrita, Mission Complex, and Silver Bell. Production In 2014, the combined copper production from Pima County’s three major mines totaled 175,000 metric tons.v This output constituted 22% of national production for that year.vi Freeport-McMoRan Inc. manages the Sierrita mine, the top-producing operation in the county, while ASARCO LLC owns both the Mission Complex and Silver Bell mines.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mineral Industry of Arizona in 2014
    2014 Minerals Yearbook ARIZONA [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. Department of the Interior June 2019 U.S. Geological Survey EXPLANATION Gyp County producing only construction sand and gravel County producing both construction MOHAVE sand and gravel and crushed stone COCONINO County boundary ^ Capital city Nonfuel mineral commodity Ag Silver Au Gold Cu,Ag Lime Bent Bentonite DS IS Cem Cement plant Pum NA VAJO IS Clay Common clay and (or) shale Gem AP ACH E Cu Copper Cem Cem DS Dimension stone Gem Gemstones Cu,Au,Mo,Ag DS Gyp Gypsum IS Industrial sand YAVAP AI Lime Lime plant Bent Mo Molybdenum GILA Au,Ag Per Perlite LA PAZ MAR ICO PA Pum Pumice PHOENIX Salt ^ Gem GRE EN- Re Rhenium Gem LE E Salt Salt Clay Zeo Zeolites Cu,Ag Cu,Au, Gyp Cu Mo,Ag YUMA Gyp GRA HAM PINAL Zeo Cem Cu Zeo PIMA Cu Zeo Cu,Mo,Ag Cu,Mo,Re CO CHISE 0 30 60 MILES Per Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data 0 30 60 KILOMETERS Albers Equal-Area Conic projection SAN TA CRU Z Figure 1. Map showing major nonfuel-mineral-producing areas in Arizona in 2014. Sources: Arizona Geological Survey and U.S. Geological Survey. The Mineral Industry of Arizona By Madan M. Singh This chapter has been prepared under a Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Geological Survey and the Arizona Geological Survey for collecting information on all nonfuel minerals. In 2014, in the State of Arizona (fig. 1), the value of nonfuel In 2014, the production quantity of construction sand and mineral production1 was $7.96 billion.
    [Show full text]
  • Failure to Capture and Treat Wastewater
    U.S. OPERATING COPPER MINES: FAILURE TO CAPTURE & TREAT WASTEWATER BY BONNIE GESTRING, MAY 2019 In 2012, Earthworks released a report documenting the failure to capture and treat mine wastewater at U.S. operating copper mines accounting for 89% of U.S. copper production.1 The report found that 92% failed to capture and control mine wastewater, resulting in significant water quality impacts. This is an update to that effort. We reviewed government and industry documents for fifteen operating open-pit copper mines, representing 99% of U.S. copper production in 2015 – the most recent data on copper production available from the U.S. Geological Survey (see Table 1). Our research found similar results: 14 out of 15 (93%) failed to capture and control wastewater, resulting in significant water quality impacts (see TaBle 2). These unauthorized wastewater releases occurred from a number of different sources including uncontrolled seepage from tailings impoundments, waste rock piles, open pits, or other mine facilities, or failure of water treatment facilities, pipeline failures or other accidental releases. TABLE 1: Copper production from top 15 (as of 2015) U.S. open-pit copper mines (most recent data availaBle from USGS).2 MINE PRODUCTION (metric tons) Morenci 481,000 Chino 142,000 Safford 91,600 Bagdad 95,300 Bingham Canyon 92,000 Sierrita 85,700 Ray 75,100 Pinto Valley 60,400 Mission CompleX 68,300 Robinson 56,800 Tyrone 38,100 Continental pit 31,000 PhoeniX 21,100 Miami 19,500 Silver Bell 19,300 Total (99% of U.S. production) 1,377,000 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Sell-1601, Molybdenum , , MILS
    CONTACT INFORMATION Mining Records Curator Arizona Geological Survey 416 W. Congress St., Suite 100 Tucson, Arizona 85701 520-770-3500 http://www.azgs.az.gov [email protected] The following file is part of the James Doyle Sell Mining Collection ACCESS STATEMENT These digitized collections are accessible for purposes of education and research. We have indicated what we know about copyright and rights of privacy, publicity, or trademark. Due to the nature of archival collections, we are not always able to identify this information. We are eager to hear from any rights owners, so that we may obtain accurate information. Upon request, we will remove material from public view while we address a rights issue. CONSTRAINTS STATEMENT The Arizona Geological Survey does not claim to control all rights for all materials in its collection. These rights include, but are not limited to: copyright, privacy rights, and cultural protection rights. The User hereby assumes all responsibility for obtaining any rights to use the material in excess of “fair use.” The Survey makes no intellectual property claims to the products created by individual authors in the manuscript collections, except when the author deeded those rights to the Survey or when those authors were employed by the State of Arizona and created intellectual products as a function of their official duties. The Survey does maintain property rights to the physical and digital representations of the works. QUALITY STATEMENT The Arizona Geological Survey is not responsible for the accuracy of the records, information, or opinions that may be contained in the files. The Survey collects, catalogs, and archives data on mineral properties regardless of its views of the veracity or accuracy of those data.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S.Copper Porphyry Mines and Water Quality
    U.S. Copper Porphyry Mines Report THE TRACK RECORD OF WATER QUALITY IMPACTS RESULTING FROM PIPELINE SPILLS, TAILINGS FAILURES AND WATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT FAILURES. JULY 2012 (REVISED 11/2012) TM EARTHWORKS U.S. COPPER PORPHYRY MINES: The track record of water quality impacts resulting from pipeline spills, tailings failures and water collection and treatment failures. EARTHWORKS, July 2012 (Revised 11/2012) By Bonnie Gestring Reviewed by Dave Chambers Ph. D., Center for Science in Public Participation (CSP2) TM EARTHWORKS Photos, top to bottom: TM Yankee Doodle tailings pond by Ecofight EARTHWORKS Chino Mine by Gila Resource Information Project (GRIP) Sierrita Mine by Ecofight Bird fatality at Tyrone Mine by Jim Kuipers TM EARTHWORKS TM EARTHWORKS Table of Contents ! Introduction, Methods, & Results ..................................................................................................... 4 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………………………5 ! Table 1: Copper production amounts for mines reviewed in the report ................................... 6 Table 2. Synopsis of pipeline spills, tailings spills and impoundment failures, and water capture and treatment failures for 14 copper porphyry mines (1986-2012). ............... 7 Case Studies of Active U.S. Copper Porphyry Mines ! Morenci Mine, AZ…………………………………………………………………………………. 8 Bingham Canyon, UT .......................................................................................................... 10 Ray Mine, AZ .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Water Consumption at Copper Mines in Arizona by Dr
    Water Consumption at Copper Mines in Arizona by Dr. Madan M. Singh State of Arizona Department of Mines & Mineral Resources Special Report 29 December 2010 State of Arizona Jan Brewer, Governor Phoenix, Arizona ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND MINERAL RESOURCES Dr. Madan M. Singh, Director 1502 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 602 771-1600 Fax 602-771-1616 Toll-free in Arizona – 800-446-4259 www.mines.az.gov Board of Governors R. L. Holmes - Phoenix Chairman P.K. Medhi - Casa Grande M.A. Marra - Phoenix Secretary Member L.H. White - Phoenix Member WATER CONSUMPTION AT COPPER MINES IN ARIZONA Arizona has the best copper deposits in the United States, and produces more of the red metal than most countries except Chile and Peru. All mining needs water for mining and processing and copper mining is no exception. Arizona is mostly desert and, therefore, short of water. This scarcity has been exacerbated because of the rapid growth of population in the state and the resulting enhanced demands for the resource. This has also attracted the attention of the general public to the use of water for mining. Most water is used in flotation beneficiation, smelting, and electro-refining. Small amounts are used for domestic purposes (drinking, bathing, and such). It is also used for wetting roads to suppress dust. Factors affecting dust suppression include annual precipitation, natural vegetation, land morphology, and other factors. The amount of water used for wetting may vary between 0% and 15% of the total water used at the mine, depending on conditions. The water source may be from underground aquifers, Central Arizona (CAP), surface streams, precipitation, or a combination.
    [Show full text]
  • Vicki Seppala General Manager, Climax Mine Freeport-Mcmoran Inc
    Vicki Seppala General Manager, Climax Mine Freeport-McMoRan Inc. 2019 Medal of Merit Recipient Non-traditional was a label used to describe Vicki Seppala when she returned to college. Returning to university after working in another industry was difficult but a path desired in her quest for a better life for herself and young son. It was just a Mine and Geological Engineering recruiting brochure on the science wall at Glendale Community College, but it caught her eye and Seppala soon found herself moving to Tucson with her fourth grade son and enrolling in the University of Arizona Geological Engineering program where she earned her Bachelor of Science Degree. She received scholastic scholarships each year and graduated with honors; she also was chosen the 1994 Outstanding Senior for the College of Engineering and Mines. After graduation, although the industry was in a down cycle, Seppala was hired as a Geological Engineer with the Phelps Dodge Sierrita mine (now Freeport-McMoRan Inc.). Her leadership skills and enthusiasm of new challenges propelled Seppala into operational roles of increasing responsibility rapidly rising to Mine Operations & Maintenance Superintendent. In 2003 she was promoted to Mine Technology Manager responsible for investigating, developing, and introducing new/existing technology to Freeport’s copper mines in North and South America. In 2006 Seppala was promoted to Mine Manager at Freeport’s Candelaria operation near Copiapo, Chile, becoming the first woman Mine Manager in Chile. The Mining Industry in Chile was rapidly changing with respect to women in nontraditional roles at that time, and Seppala became a part of that change.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019-Climate-Report.Pdf
    BUILDING ON STRENGTH Climate Report 2019 Climate Report | 1 About Freeport-McMoRan Freeport-McMoRan Inc. (together with its operating subsidiaries, Freeport-McMoRan, FCX or the company) is a leading international mining company with headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona. The company operates large, long-lived, geographically diverse assets with significant proven and probable reserves of copper, gold and molybdenum. Freeport-McMoRan’s portfolio of assets includes the Grasberg minerals district in Indonesia, one of the world’s largest copper and gold deposits; and significant mining operations in North America and South America, including the large-scale Morenci minerals district in Arizona and the Cerro Verde operation in Peru. Freeport-McMoRan is one of the world’s largest publicly traded copper producers. For purposes of this report only, references to (1) Freeport-McMoRan Minerals Corporation (FMC Mining) includes all mining operations in North and South America (the Americas), (2) Freeport-McMoRan Corporation Downstream Processing (FMC Downstream Processing) includes all operations downstream of mining in the Americas and Europe and (3) PT Freeport Indonesia (PT-FI) includes our operations in Papua, Indonesia. Table of Did You Know? Contents Copper is critical to achieving several of the United Nations Sustainable OUR APPROACH 4 Development Goals and enabling the global energy transition. It takes an average of 4.1 metric tons of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to produce 1 metric ton of copper cathode from cradle to gate.1 However, because of its effectiveness in electrical applications, copper's GHG emissions can be mitigated by a factor of up to 1,500 to 1. REDUCTION 6 In fact, the International Copper Association2 estimates that by 2030, copper could help reduce global emissions by 16%.
    [Show full text]
  • Freeport-Mcmoran Inc. (Exact Name of Registrant As Specified in Its Charter)
    UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K (Mark One) [X] ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 OR [ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from to Commission File Number: 001-11307-01 Freeport-McMoRan Inc. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Delaware 74-2480931 (State or other jurisdiction of (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) incorporation or organization) 333 North Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2189 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) (602) 366-8100 (Registrant's telephone number, including area code) Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of each class Name of each exchange on which registered Common Stock, par value $0.10 per share New York Stock Exchange Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act þ Yes o No Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. o Yes þ No Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
    [Show full text]
  • Leading the World in Moly Brochure
    LEADING THE WORLD IN MOLY INTRODUCTION There is a growing global demand for molybdenum, a versatile element with diverse applications in the chemical, engineering and petroleum industries. Molybdenum and its alloys are key components in chemical and metallurgical applications. Climax Molybdenum Company, a subsidiary of Freeport- McMoRan, is one of the world’s leading molybdenum producers. From our early beginnings in Colorado, Climax Molybdenum has grown into a global, diversified company with downstream operations and a proven commercial presence worldwide. Climax Mine, Colorado 1918 CLIMAX MINE BEGINS PRODUCTION On April 2, 1918, Climax ships its first concentrate totaling 21,000 pounds with a market value of $100,000. Climax is a major contributor to the allied war effort Molybdenum first discovered on Bartlett Mountain. First stakes claimed mine. during World War I. 1879 1890 1918 Climax Molybdenum 1 Our operations in North America and upgraded molybdenum chemical products. South America include both primary The Climax Stowmarket plant in the and by-product molybdenum mines. United Kingdom provides ferromolybdenum and Climax Molybdenum B.V. in the GLOBAL OPERATIONS We are also one of the leading global Netherlands produces technical molybdic producers of molybdenum with chemical oxide, ammonium dimolybdate and pure and metallurgical products manufactured molybdic oxide. at our production facilities in the United States and Europe. Our Fort Madison’s Serving customers worldwide, Climax conversion capabilities provide Climax Molybdenum’s
    [Show full text]