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 Community Water Company of Green Valley Central Arizona Project Water Delivery System Pima County, Arizona U. S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Phoenix Area Office Glendale, Arizona July 2010 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT COMMUNITY WATER COMPANY OF GREEN VALLEY CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT WATER DELIVERY SYSTEM PIMA COUNTY , ARIZONA PREPARED FOR U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION PREPARED BY ERO RESOURCES CORPORATION DENVER , COLORADO WWW.ERORESOURCES .COM Interior and Reclamation Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian tribes and our commitments to island communities. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 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. ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AAC Arizona Administrative Code ACC Arizona Corporation Commission ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ADWR Arizona Department of Water Resources AF acre-feet AFY acre-feet/year AGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department AL Action Level ANC American Nevada Company ARS Arizona Revised Statutes ASLD Arizona State Land Department ASM Arizona State Museum AZPDES Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System BA Biological Assessment bgs below ground surface CAGRD Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District CAP Central Arizona Project CAWCD Central Arizona Water Conservation District CC&N Certificate of Convenience & Necessity CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CNF Coronado National Forest CWA Clean Water Act CWC Community Water Company of Green Valley Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers DEA Draft Environmental Assessment EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ERO ERO Resources Corporation ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended FEMA Federal Emergency Management Area FICO Farmers Investment Company FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact Freeport- Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc. McMoRan FR Federal Register FWCA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act i FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service gpm gallons per minute GSF Groundwater Savings Facility GVDWID Green Valley Domestic Water Improvement District I-19 Interstate 19 ITA Indian Trust Assets Listed species species listed as federally threatened or endangered under the ESA LLNB lesser long-nosed bat LOI Letter of Intent between CWC and Augusta Resource Corporation M&I municipal and industrial MCL Maximum Contaminant Level mg/l milligrams per liter MPO mine plan of operation NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards ND not detected NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NH Nogales Highway NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NR not reported NRHP National Register of Historic Places ONH Old Nogales Highway pCi/l picocuries per liter PAG Pima Association of Governments PDEQ Pima County Department of Environmental Quality P.L. Public Law PM 2.5 particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter PM 10 particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter PMR Pima Mine Road PMRRP Pima Mine Road Recharge Project PPC Pima pineapple cactus ppm parts per million Proposed Project CWC CAP water delivery system RDEA Revised DEA Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation RH Rural Homestead Rosemont Rosemont Copper Company ROW right-of-way SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition SDCP Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan Section 7 Section 7 of the ESA ii SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SMCL Secondary MCL Stantec Stantec Consulting, Inc. STD Standard STU Standard Testing Units TAMA Tucson Active Management Area TAPA Tucson Air Planning Area TDS total dissolved solids µg/l micrograms per liter µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter µS/cm microsemens per centimeter USC Upper Santa Cruz USC/PUG Upper Santa Cruz Providers and Users Group USFS U.S. Forest Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey WWTP wastewater treatment plant iii Unit Conversion Guide For the reader’s convenience, the following table has been included to serve as a guide in converting measurements found in this document between U.S. measurements and metric. CONVERSION OF U.S. TO METRIC MEASUREMENTS U.S. Measurement Metric Measurement Distance 1 inch 2.54 centimeters 1 foot 0.31 meter 1 mile 1.61 kilometers Area 1 square foot 0.09 square meter 1 acre 0.41 hectare CONVERSION OF METRIC TO U.S. MEASUREMENTS Metric Measurement U.S. Measurement Distance 1 centimeter 0.39 inch 1 meter 3.28 feet 1 kilometer 0.62 mile Area 1 square meter 10.76 square feet 1 hectare 2.47 acres iv CONTENTS 1.0 Purpose and Need...................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Introduction and Background ...........................................................................2 1.2 Purpose and Need of Reclamation and CWC...................................................3 1.3 Project Location................................................................................................6 1.4 Public Involvement and Scoping......................................................................6 1.5 Relationship to Proposed Rosemont Mine .......................................................8 2.0 Description of Alternatives ..................................................................................... 10 2.1 Formulation and Evaluation of Alternatives...................................................10 2.2 No Action Alternative.....................................................................................11 2.3 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative or Proposed Project) .......................12 2.4 Additional Action Alternatives.......................................................................17 2.4.1 North Parcel Recharge Site Alternative..............................................17 2.4.2 CAP Terminus Alternative .................................................................18 2.4.3 CAP Entitlements and CWC-Only Alternatives.................................18 2.5 Project Financing............................................................................................19 2.6 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study .......................21 2.6.1 Direct Use of CAP Water ...................................................................21 2.6.2 Alternative Pipeline Routes ................................................................21 2.6.3 Alternative Recharge Sites .................................................................21 3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences...................................... 25 3.1 Background for Cumulative Effects...............................................................25 3.1.1 Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ........................................................26 3.1.2 Actions Not Considered Reasonably Foreseeable for Cumulative Impact Analysis Purposes ...............................................27 3.1.3 Other Future Actions Not Considered for Cumulative Impact Analysis Purposes...............................................................................28 3.2 Air Quality......................................................................................................28 3.2.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................29 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences.............................................................32 3.2.2.1 No Action Alternative ....................................................... 32 3.2.2.2 Preferred Alternative......................................................... 32 3.2.2.3 North Parcel Recharge Site Alternative ............................ 33 3.2.2.4 CAP Terminus Alternative................................................ 33 3.2.2.5 CAP Entitlements Alternative........................................... 33 3.2.2.6 CWC-Only Alternative...................................................... 33 3.2.3 Cumulative Effects .............................................................................33 3.3 Land Use.........................................................................................................34 3.3.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................34 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences.............................................................36 3.3.2.1 No Action Alternative ....................................................... 36 3.3.2.2 Preferred Alternative......................................................... 36 3.3.2.3 North Parcel Recharge Site Alternative ............................ 37 v 3.3.2.4 CAP Terminus Alternative................................................ 37 3.3.2.5 CAP Entitlements Alternative........................................... 37 3.3.2.6 CWC-Only Alternative...................................................... 38 3.3.3 Cumulative Effects .............................................................................38 3.4 Biological Resources ......................................................................................38 3.4.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................38 3.4.1.1 Vegetation ........................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rosemont Copper Mine Complaint
    Case 4:19-cv-00177-JAS Document 1 Filed 03/27/19 Page 1 of 94 1 Roger Flynn (CO Bar # 21078) (Applicant Pro Hac Vice) Jeffrey C. Parsons (CO Bar # 30210) (Applicant Pro Hac Vice) 2 WESTERN MINING ACTION PROJECT 3 P.O. Box 349, 440 Main Street, #2 Lyons, CO 80540 4 Phone: 303-823-5738 5 Email: [email protected] 6 Marc D. Fink (MN Bar # 343407) (Applicant Pro Hac Vice) 7 Center for Biological Diversity 209 East 7th Street 8 Duluth, Minnesota 55805 Phone: 218-464-0539 9 Email: [email protected] 10 Allison N. Melton (CO Bar # 45088) (Applicant Pro Hac Vice) 11 Center for Biological Diversity 12 128 Cascadilla St./#3024 Crested Butte, CO 81224 13 Phone: 970-309-2008 14 Email: [email protected] 15 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA TUCSON DIVISION 18 19 Save the Scenic Santa Ritas; ) Center for Biological Diversity; ) Case No. 20 Arizona Mining Reform Coalition; ) 21 Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter; ) COMPLAINT FOR 22 ) VACATUR, AND 23 Plaintiffs, ) EQUITABLE, v. ) DECLARATORY, AND 24 ) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 25 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; ) 26 D. Peter Helmlinger, Brigadier General, U.S. ) Army, in his official capacity; ) 27 ) 28 Defendants. ) Case 4:19-cv-00177-JAS Document 1 Filed 03/27/19 Page 2 of 94 1 INTRODUCTION 2 1. This case challenges the decisions of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 3 (“Corps”) to issue a permit that authorizes the construction and operation of the 4 5 Rosemont Copper Project (“Rosemont Project” or “Mine”), a large-scale open pit copper 6 mine in the heart of the Santa Rita Mountains south of Tucson, Arizona.
    [Show full text]
  • Rosemont Preliminary Injunction Release
    For Immediate Release, May 16, 2019 Court Order Sought to Stop Rosemont Mine Construction in Arizona TUCSON, Ariz.— Conservation groups and tribes yesterday asked a federal court to prevent construction from starting on the Rosemont Copper Mine in southern Arizona until a judge rules on pending lawsuits filed by the parties. Yesterday’s motion for a preliminary inJunction, filed in U.S. District Court in Tucson, pertains to five lawsuits filed over the past two years by Save the Scenic Santa Ritas, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Arizona Mining Reform Coalition, the Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon Chapter, and the Tohono O’odham, Pascua Yaqui and Hopi tribes. The lawsuits seek to overturn a series of federal approvals greenlighting the controversial open-pit copper mine in the Santa Rita Mountains. “The Rosemont mine would cause irreparable and permanent damage to our water and mountains,” said Gayle Hartmann, president of Save the Scenic Santa Ritas. “Allowing Rosemont to commence construction activities prior to a judge addressing the serious issues in our suit would deny southern Arizonans the Justice to which they are entitled under the law.” The lawsuits say that federal agencies violated fundamental environmental laws, including the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, when they approved the massive Rosemont Mine. The mile-wide, 3,000-foot-deep mine would dry up critical water sources, harm a number of endangered species and destroy thousands of acres of public land in the Coronado National Forest. Hudbay Minerals, the proJect’s owner, has announced plans to begin ground-disturbing activities in July.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project V Executive Summary
    Executive Summary Introduction Augusta Resource Corporation (Augusta Resource), the parent company of Rosemont Copper Company (Rosemont Copper), submitted a preliminary mine plan of operations (MPO) to the Coronado National Forest (the Coronado), an administrative unit of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (Forest Service), for development of the Rosemont ore deposit. The proposed mine site is located on the east side of the Santa Rita Mountains of the Nogales Ranger District, approximately 30 miles south of Tucson, Arizona (figure ES1). Activity is proposed on approximately 995 acres of private land owned by Rosemont Copper, 3,670 acres of National Forest System land, 15 acres of Bureau of Land Management administered land, and 75 acres of Arizona State Land Department land administered as a State Trust. This includes a proposed utility corridor that is needed to provide utility services to the project area. The mine life, including construction, operation, reclamation, and closure, is approximately 25 years and may include beneficial and adverse impacts on the human environment. Three Federal agencies have authority regarding the preliminary MPO approval: the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A number of permits would need to be obtained before mine construction could commence. These permits, which are described in chapter 2 of the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), are regulated by a variety of Federal, State, and local agencies. The Forest Service is the lead agency, and land managers for the Coronado National Forest prepared the DEIS. The Rosemont Copper Project DEIS describes the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on environmental resources for the proposed action and alternatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Rosemont Copper Mine United States
    Rosemont Copper Mine United States Sectors: Mining On record This profile is no longer actively maintained, with the information now possibly out of date Send feedback on this profile By: BankTrack Created before Nov 2016 Last update: Oct 12 2016 Contact: Doug Norlen, Pacific Environment Project website Sectors Mining Location Website http://rosemontcopper.com/ About Rosemont Copper Mine Vancouver-based speculative mining company, Augusta Resource Corporation, and its Arizona subsidiary, Rosemont Copper Company, plan to blast a mile-wide, half-mile deep copper mine on 4,000 acres of the Santa Rita mountains on the Coronado National Forest, 35-miles southeast of Tucson. Rosemont claims the mine could supply 10 percent of U.S. copper output, producing 244 million pounds of copper concentrate a year for about 21 years. The mine is vehemently opposed by residents and local governments in the area who fear for water contamination, depletion of underground drinking water supplies and the destruction of the landscape that includes suitable habitat for endangered species. For more details on their concerns please visit here. The project requires a Record of Decision from the Coronado National Forest and issuance of a Clean Water Act permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has veto authority over water permits issued by the Army Corps. EPA Region IX has been sharply critical of Rosemont's Mine Plan of Operations. Impacts Governance Other applicable regulations The project requires a Record of Decision from the Coronado National Forest and issuance of a Clean Water Act permit from the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project 754 Chapter 4
    Chapter 4. Agencies Consulted Introduction This chapter lists the tribes, organizations, and federal, state, and local government agencies consulted during the development of this draft environmental impact statement. Cooperating agencies,1 those with jurisdiction by law or specialized experience, are also identified. Tribal Consultations Ak-Chin Indian Community Fort Sill Apache Tribe Gila River Indian Community Hopi Tribe Mescalero Apache Tribe Pascua Yaqui Tribe Pueblo of Zuni Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community San Carlos Apache Tribe Tohono O’odham Nation White Mountain Apache Tribe Yavapai-Apache Nation Government Federal Bureau of Land Management* Chiricahua National Monument National Park Service, Saguaro National Park* Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory – Fred Lawrence Whipple Observatory* Tumacacori National Historical Park U.S. Army Corps of Engineers* U.S. Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Department of the Air Force Davis- Monthan Air Force Base 162nd Fighter Airwing* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Field Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest U.S. House of Representatives Regional Office U.S. Senate 1 Formal cooperating agencies are denoted by an asterisk (*) following the agency name. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project 754 Chapter 4. Agencies Consulted State Arizona Department of Agriculture Arizona Department of Environmental Quality* Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Arizona Department of Transportation*
    [Show full text]
  • Rosemont Mine Order
    Case 4:17-cv-00475-JAS Document 291 Filed 02/10/20 Page 1 of 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Center for Biological Diversity, et al., No. CV-17-00475-TUC-JAS (L) No. CV-17-00576-TUC-JAS (C) 10 Plaintiffs, No. CV-18-00189-TUC-JAS (C) CONSOLIDATED 11 v. ORDER 12 United States Fish and Wildlife Service, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment as 16 to the Complaint (Docs. 106, 119, 121),1 the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment 17 as to Rosemont Copper Company (“Rosemont”)’s crossclaims (Docs. 103, 114, 116), and 18 the Federal Defendants’ Motion to Stay (Doc. 252).2 The Motion to Stay (Doc. 252) is 19 denied. The Court finds that the Landis test, as applied in the Ninth Circuit, does not 20 support a stay in this case. Accordingly, the Court will issue a ruling on the remaining 21 matter. 22 SECTION ONE: FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 23 The facts are well known to the parties and were discussed in the Court’s previous 24 Order (Doc. 248).3 The Court will not provide an extensive recitation of the facts; however, 25 1 All citations to the docket are to the lead case, 17-cv-00475. Any citation to a page within 26 the docket is based on the page stamp automatically created by CM-ECF on the top of the page in blue.
    [Show full text]
  • Rosemont Copper Mine. Conceptual Site Model for Assessing Contaminant Transport and Pathways
    Rosemont Copper Mine. Conceptual Site Model for Assessing Contaminant Transport and Pathways Program: The Pima County International Man-Environment Observatory Investigators: Asma El Ouni and Mark L. Brusseau Soil, Water, and Environmental Science Department. The Contaminant Transport Lab. The University of Arizona Nov, 2016 Table of Contents I. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 4 II. Motivation ...................................................................................................................... 4 III. Site description ............................................................................................................... 4 1. Meteorological data ................................................................................................ 5 2. Hydrology and Hydrogeology ............................................................................... 5 IV. Mine description ............................................................................................................ 6 V. Conceptual Site Model .................................................................................................. 6 1. Potential Sources of Contamination ....................................................................... 7 In porous media 1.1 Pit ........................................................................................................................ 7 1.2 Heap Leach and Ore Processing Facilities ........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Augusta Resource Corporation (Azc)
    AUGUSTA RESOURCE CORPORATION (AZC) Investor Update - October 2013 WWW.SCENICSANTARITAS.ORG CONTENTS Recent Key Actions Affecting Augusta Resource Corporation’s Proposed Rosemont Copper Project ............................................ 2 Augusta Resource Corporation Financial Overview ........................................................................ 3 Augusta’s Top Officers’ Checkered Past ........................................ 4 The Link Between Augusta Resource and an Abandoned Sardinian Gold Mine ..................................... 5 Rosemont Mine Location ............................................................... 6 Outstanding Permitting Issues ..................................................... 7 Rosemont Mine’s Outlook ............................................................. 9 DISCLAIMER: While this report discusses financial issues, it does not provide specific recommendations for any particular situation or circumstances and it should not be used as a basis for investment decisions. Such recommendations can only be provided by a qualified professional advisor who is familiar with your particular circumstances and other relevant information. This report and its content are for informational and/or educational purposes only. This report seeks to provide information and questions about the Augusta Resource Corporation, Rosemont Copper and the proposed Rosemont Copper Mine and is not a solicitation to buy or sell anything. Recent Key Actions Affecting Augusta Resource Corporation’s Proposed Rosemont Copper
    [Show full text]
  • Schaefer-1979.Pdf
    THE ANAMAX PROJECT HISTORY OF THE ROSEMONT AREA IN THE SANTA RITA MOUNTAINS, ARIZONA by Jerome Schaefer ✓ Cultural Resource Management Section Arizona State Museum The University of Arizona November 1979 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES iii 1. INTRODUCTION 1 Trends, Events, and Innovations affecting Historic Activity . 1 2. DEMOGRAPHIC PATTERNS 7 Population Trends 7 3. ROSEMONT CAMP AND THE ROSEMONT MINES 11 Life in Rosemont 15 Transportation 16 The Hotel 17 The Rosemont School '21 The Rosemont Store 21 Entertainment 22 The Rosemont Ranger Station 23 4. OTHER MINES 25 Narragansett Mine and New Rosemont 25 Helena Mine 26 5 RANCHING HISTORY 28 General Trends 28 The Scholefield or Hidden Spring Ranch 29 The VR Ranch 30 Lopez's Ranch 31 Chapo's Ranch 32 Martinez Ranch 32 St. Helena Ranch and_the-St.,Helena,Cattle Company 33 Outlying Range Management Installations 33 6. PROSPECTS AND PROBLEMS FOR HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 34 APPENDIX A, Catalogue of Primary Documents 39 REFERENCES 50 ii LIST OF FIGURES 1. Chronology of events in the history of Rosemont and environs . 2 2. Copper prices and production in the Helvetia Mining District . 5 3. Population trends in the Rosemont, Helvetia, and Greaterville Districts 8 4. Historic localities in the ANAMAX Exchange area 12 5. Plat of the claim of Charles W. Welch, Assignee of Leonard Lewisohn 18 6. Undated photograph of Rosemont, looking west 19 7. The hotel, store, warehouse, smelter, and assayer's office in 1900 20 8. Miner's tent house Helvetia at the turn of the century 36 9. Homes of Mexican miners in Helvetia at the turn of the century .
    [Show full text]
  • Rosemont Copper Mine Objection Review
    Rosemont Copper Mine, Objection Review Response 2014 Rosemont Copper Mine Objection Review Objection # (s): 0011-CKestler; 0016-KPaul; 0017-MStock; 0018-JConnelly; 0019-ALannon; 0022-RMaki; 0027-SBrowning; 0028-TPurdon; 0035-DHanna; 0038-KBeck; 0049-CDowning; 0056-SWhitehouse; 0058-NWall; 0059-AIventosch; 0073-MSheldonDiVito; 0074-SHey; 0077- DWeinstein; 0078-ADanowitz; 0079-JMoney; 0080-CShinsky; 0081-GShinsky; 0082SReichardt; 0083-FICO; 0084-SSSR; 0087-BobAnderson; 0089-TMoney; 0109-SWind; 0115-KChristian; 0118-KLowery Resource Area(s): Ground Water Resources – General (GWR-1) Objection Issue: • 0074-1: Where does Rosemont get the water they need? • 0081-1: The USFS has done very little to alleviate the concerns of over 500 well owners in the Hilton Ranch Rd. valley, Singing Valley 1North, Singing Valley South, and the Sonoita plains region. Your studies for water depletion from the Rosemont project are lacking the necessary data for a more definitive prediction of two major watersheds, Cienega Creek drainage and Davidson Canyon (fed by Barrel Canyon Drainage). • 0078-1: The USFS response to the potential loss of well water to homeowners remains completely inadequate. • 0082-2: I find nothing in the FEIS that insures that we will have (domestic well) water. • 0083-1: Arizona law permits mines to pump essentially an unlimited amount of groundwater. However the USFS failed to provide any analysis of the potential impacts of this increased groundwater pumping (pump water above and beyond what their permit currently allows), particularly for neighboring landowners. • 0118-1: I feel that the water issues have not been adequately addressed or satisfied. To allow the mine to pump thousands of cubic feet/acres of water from our water table in the desert where there are thriving communities that depend on it, puts these communities at risk for safe potable water in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Rosemont Copper Project, Coronado National Forest, Pima County, Arizona [CEQ# 20110350]
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR February 21, 2012 Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor Coronado National Forest 300 W. Congress Street Tucson, AZ 85701 Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project, Coronado National Forest, Pima County, Arizona [CEQ# 20110350] Dear Mr. Upchurch, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) for the Rosemont Copper Mine Project (Project). Our review and comments are provided pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and our review authority under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). These comments were also prepared under the authority of, and in accordance with, the provisions of the Federal Guidelines (Guidelines) promulgated at 40 CFR 230 under Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). We appreciate the additional time that the Forest Service granted us to complete our review of this complex proposal. The proposed action would authorize the construction, operation and closure of the Rosemont Copper Mine (Project) on approximately 3,670 acres of National Forest System land, 995 acres of private land owned by Rosemont Copper, 15 acres of Bureau of Land Management administered land, and 75 acres of Arizona State Land Department land. According to the Draft EIS, the Proposed Project and its alternatives (including the preferred alternative) will violate some of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter of 10 microns or less (PM10), particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and ozone (O3).
    [Show full text]
  • Eng Form 4345 Attatchment
    ROSEMONT COPPER A Bridge to a Sustainable Future. Memorandum To: Bev Everson Cc: Chris Garrett From: Kathy Doc #: 130/1 — 15.3.2 Subject: Transmittal of = pplications Date: December 7, 2011 Rosemont Copper is transmitting the following applications for your records. • Section 404 Permit Application for the Rosemont copper Project ACOE File No. SPL -2008- 00816 - MB, prepared by WestLand Resources, dated October 11, 2011 and transmittal • AERMOD Modeling Protocol to Assess Ambient Air Quality Impacts, prepared by JBR Environmental for ADEQ, dated December 2, 2011 and transmittal letter • Revised AERMOD Modeling Report to Assess Ambient Air Quality Impacts, prepared by JBR Environmental for ADEQ, dated December 2, 2011 • Application for a Class II Permit Rosemont Copper Project, Southeastern Arizona, prepared by JBR for ADEQ, dated November 15, 2011 and transmittal letter • Emissions Inventory Information Years 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20, Volume I, prepared by JBR Environmental for ADEQ, dated November 1, 2011 • Emissions Inventory Information Years 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20, Volume II, prepared by JBR Environmental for ADEQ, dated November 1, 2011 Rosemont is providing CNF with three hardcopies and one electronic copy of the Section 404 Permit Application and two hardcopies and one electronic copy to SWCA. Single copies of the air modeling information, permit application, and emissions inventories are being provided along with an electronic copy of these reports. Please note the modeling information matches the protocols preferred by ADEQ and is for the MPO version of the plan. Rosemont Copper Project, SPL-2008-00816-MB Section 404 Permit Application ENG FORM 4345 ATTACHMENT BLOCK 13 – NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN Barrel Canyon, Wasp Canyon, McCleary Canyon, Scholefield Canyon, and other unnamed ephemeral washes.
    [Show full text]