Rosemont Copper Summary of Technical Studies

At Rosemont Copper, we are dedicated to developing a state-of-the-art mineral production facility that is both a model of sustainability and showcase for the best new technologies available today.

We have followed that same passion for excellence since the first day we began developing this project and it is reflected in everything we do, including all of the research and planning that has gone into its design – and into the research that has supported the planning.

Toward that end, we have completed more than 300 studies exploring every aspect of the historical mine site that will be home to potentially the world’s fourth largest copper production facility, supplying five percent of the nation’s copper needs for more than a generation.

We are very pleased to share this educational guide to these research and technical reports.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 5

NEPA Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 7

Report Summaries Air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 9 Aquifer Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 12 Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Biological . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 17 Geochemical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 20 Geotechnical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - 25 Water Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 - 29 Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 - 32 Socioeconomic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Surface Water & Riparian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 - 36 Tailings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 - 39 United States Army Corp of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 - 41

Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 - 45

The information presented in this report includes summaries of all technical studies regarding the Rosemont Copper project through

December 2010 . The complete, original studies are found at www .rosemontcopper .com, as well as studies and reports completed since

that time . If there are any discrepancies in this report, we refer you to the full study as the correct source of information .

Table of Contents

4 rosemont copper - a bridge to a sustainable future

Introduction

Given that two-thirds of copper produced in the United States is from Arizona and that mining has been a vital industry to the state for more than a century, finding an undeveloped, commercially viable mineral deposit is a very rare occurrence. More than five years ago, Rosemont Copper verified a significant mineral deposit in a historical mining district. On the Rosemont Copper property there

is a combination of the strategic minerals of copper, molybdenum, and silver. The United States currently obtains 40 percent of its copper supply from outside the country, so developing local copper resources has national importance.

Rosemont Copper submitted a detailed Mine Plan of Operations (MPO) to the United States Forest Service in 2007 to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for development of the property. To complete the EIS, the U.S. Forest Service, through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Rosemont Copper, has compiled more than 200 studies and technical reports, environmental studies and reviews. The EIS process

Two-thirds of the COPPER produced in the United States is from Arizona .


rosemont copper - a bridge to a sustainable future 5

includes community involvement and public meetings, and extensive technical studies resulting in a final submittal of the findings and alternatives for review and comment.

The Forest Service, in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), has led the EIS process to disclose impacts and to address how Rosemont Copper will operate under federal environmental laws and regulations. A partial list of these federal laws includes the National Environmental Policy Act; the Clean Air Act; the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act); the Safe Drinking Water Act; the Solid Waste Disposal Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act; the Toxic Substance Control Act; and, the Endangered Species Act.

In addition to the EIS review, the Rosemont Copper project will have to conform to all federal, state, and local environmental regulations. At least a dozen permits and approvals are required before mine construction can begin. While it is true that mining in the past has left its mark on the landscape, today there is a different public expectation - and a higher level of technology available to avoid and mitigate environmental impacts.

This booklet contains brief consumer summaries of all the studies, technical reports and research that has been conducted to help complete the EIS. In addition to the summaries, a weblink to the full reports summarized here is provided for those seeking further information.

5


NEPA Overview

According to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA):

“It is the continuing policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with State and local governments, and other concerned public and private organizations, to use all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans.”

The Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued regulations in 1979 implementing NEPA. The regulations include procedures for Federal agencies to use in the environmental review process. These implement Section 102(2) of NEPA, which contains the “action forcing” provisions, including Section 102(2)(C), the Environmental Impact Statement.

In 1981, CEQ issued the “Forty Most Asked Questions” to assist government agencies with responding to public inquiries about the NEPA process. CEQ’s website includes additional guidance for implementing NEPA. For those interested in the whole list, please visit the “Forty Most Asked Questions” at http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/40/40P1.HTM.

According to the CEQ’s regulations for implementing NEPA: •Documents should concentrate on issues that are significant

to the action in question, rather than amassing needless detail.

• Federal agencies shall to the fullest extent possible produce Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) documents that are concise, clear, and to the point, and shall be supported by evidence that agencies have done the necessary environmental analysis.

• Federal agencies are also directed to integrate the requirements of NEPA with other planning and environmental review procedures required by law or by agency practice so that all such procedures run concurrently rather than consecutively.

View from Mile Post 44, on Hwy 83, end Year 10 .

View from Mile Post 44, on Hwy 83, 2006 .



According to NEPA, any recommendations, reports on proposal for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment must include a detailed statement by the responsible official on:

•The environmental impact of the proposed action.

•Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented.

•Alternatives to the proposed action.

•The relationship between local short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity.

•Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.

Steps in the NEPA Process

The NEPA process is developed in a series of steps:

• The proposed action.

• The Notice of Intent published in the paper stating the agency’s intention to proceed with analysis of the project under NEPA.

• Scoping where comments on the proposed action are solicited. The scoping process results in comment reports where all comments are catalogued, sorted, reviewed, and used for activities such as defining additional information needs, developing alternatives, developing issues, etc.

• Issues identification develops a list of items that are considered significant when alternatives are being developed; this helps guide the alternatives identification process.

•Alternatives identification, where alternatives are developed to respond to issues and comments identified during the scoping process.

•Draft EIS, where the purpose of and need for the project is disclosed along with the reasonable range of alternatives, a preferred alternative is identified, impacts to the environment are disclosed, and mitigation or monitoring plans or concepts are discussed.

•Notice of Availability where the Draft EIS is publicly available and the public comment period starts. Public comments are accepted and then analyzed to assist in alternatives selection, ensure that the range of reasonable alternatives was broad enough, review descriptions of monitoring or mitigation plans, etc.

• Final EIS where the agency decision-maker will determine the alternative and mitigation pieces best for the project.

• Public availability of the Final EIS where the public can review the document.

• Publication of the Record of Decision.

• Implementation of the plan with monitoring and mitigation as required in the decision.

Public Involvement in the NEPA process

Handled correctly, scoping and public participation (the process by which significant environmental issues deserving study are identified) in the NEPA process will improve acceptance of the decision and, at minimum, provide the decision-maker with the best information possible for making a decision. The amount and type of public involvement will vary depending on the project.

Generally, there are four points where public comment is solicited in an EIS process:

1. During scoping where comments are used to determine issues of concern, help to develop alternatives to be selected and ensure that the proposal addresses all necessary information.

2. When the draft EIS is issued, the public is asked to provide comment on the purpose and need, the range of reasonable alternatives considered, the preferred alternative (if one is identified by the agency), and the environmental effects of the alternatives.

3. The public also has access to the final EIS and there are 30 days for review of this document prior to the publication of the record of decision.

4. Finally, the public can be involved in monitoring implementation of the proposed action and the effectiveness of any associated mitigation.

Cooperating Agencies

Frequently, one or more agencies other than the lead agency – in this case the U.S. Forest Service – are involved in the process because there is functional or jurisdictional interdependence or geographic proximity. Often these cooperating agencies will have permitting or other regulatory control over some portion of the project or be near enough that activities at a project site may have some effect.

The role of cooperating agencies is to contribute to the scoping process; help develop the project’s purpose and need, as well as possible alternatives to the original plan of operations presented to the lead agency; contribute to areas of the EIS where the cooperating agency has jurisdiction or special expertise, and review the draft and final EIS documents. Cooperating agencies can often lend expertise when projects are being technically reviewed.


Air

Air Modeling ResultsTITLE: Modeling Report to Assess Ambient Air Quality

ImpactsRELEASE DATE: July 2010PREPARED BY: Applied Environmental ConsultantsBrief Summary: An air impact analysis was conducted

by Applied Environmental Consultants as part of the Environmental Impact Study to demonstrate the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Demonstration of protection of NAAQS was accomplished by comparing the maximum impacts to the applicable standards. The study looked at carbon monoxide (CO), nitrous oxides (NOx), particulate matter less than 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM10), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5) and concluded that all were less than the applicable standards associated with each.

TITLE: CALPUFF Modeling Report to Assess Impacts in Class I Areas

RELEASE DATE: July 2010PREPARED BY: Applied Environmental ConsultantsBrief Summary: Applied Environmental Consultants

conducted an evaluation of potential ambient air quality impacts due to emissions from the Rosemont project based on projected emissions from Year 1 and Year 5. Results showed that of the Class I areas studied, the greatest predicted pollutant concentrates and the highest potential for visual impacts are at the Saguaro National Monument East. Even at these “greatest potential” areas, impacts are negligible and infinitesimal compared to impacts from the Tucson urban area.


Air studies looked at the potential short- and long-term effects of the Rosemont project on air quality - at the project site and in specific areas of urban Tucson .

Air


Air Permit InformationTITLE: Executive Summary Air Quality Information

Rosemont Copper Project Southeastern ArizonaRELEASE DATE: July 2010PREPARED BY: Applied Environmental ConsultantsBrief Summary: An application for a Class II Air Quality

permit includes all information required for issuance of the air quality permit including site plans, process flow diagrams, equipment descriptions, pollution controls, maximum process rates, maximum emissions of regulated pollutants, and applicable air quality requirements. The Rosemont project also is subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that requires an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The information needed to address air quality in the EIS includes some additional information not required for the Class II air quality permit: innovative or non-standard actions that would reduce emissions; emission estimates (including greenhouse gases) on a 5-year cycle throughout the life of the mine; weather and ambient pollution data summary; and air modeling protocol, assumptions, settings, and results. This additional information is outlined in this report.

TITLE: Application for a Class II Permit Rosemont Copper Project Southeastern Arizona

RELEASE DATE: July 2010PREPARED BY: Applied Environmental ConsultantsBrief Summary: Information necessary for the Pima

County Department of Environmental Quality was submitted as part of the Class II Air Quality Permit process. The report covers how the variety of minerals at the site will be processed, the major operations, and the potential to emit pollutants.

TITLE: Emission Inventory Information Years 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 Rosemont Copper Project Southeastern Arizona

RELEASE DATE: July 2010PREPARED BY: Applied Environmental ConsultantsBrief Summary: This report summarizes the Rosemont

project’s potential to emit the following regulated air pollutants throughout the life of the mine: a) particulate matter, b) particulate matter less than 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter, c) particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter, d) carbon monoxide, e) nitrous oxides, f) sulfur dioxide, g) volatile organic compounds, h) sulfuric acid, i) carbon dioxide, and j) hazardous air pollutants.

Ambient Air and Meteorological InfoTITLE: Summary of Ambient Air Quality and

Meteorological Data Collected from Startup through March 2009 Volumes 1-4

RELEASE DATE: April 2009PREPARED BY: Applied Environmental ConsultantsBrief Summary: The Rosemont project monitoring

program summary provides background and baseline air quality and meteorological conditions in support of an application for an air quality permit for the planned operations. The information in this document summarizes the monitoring program and data collected from February 2007 through March 2009.

PermitsTITLE: Air Quality Activity Permit: Fugitive Dust 6488RELEASE DATE: August 2010

TITLE: Air Quality Activity Permit: Fugitive Dust 6489RELEASE DATE: August 2010

TITLE: Air Quality Permit Application received July 20, 2010 (Permit #6112) Letter

RELEASE DATE:: September 2010

TITLE: Air Quality Permit Application, Permit No . 6112RELEASE DATE: October 2010

TITLE: Response to Incomplete Permit Application received October 12, 2010 (Permit #6112) Letter

RELEASE DATE: November 2010

MiscellaneousTITLE: Rosemont Copper Company Application for

Class II Permit LetterRELEASE DATE: September 2010

TITLE: Air Quality Permit Processing in Pima County, Arizona White Paper

RELEASE DATE: September 2010


Aquifer Protection

Agency CorrespondenceTITLE: Initial Hydrology for Rosemont Copper

OperationsRELEASE DATE: October 2009PREPARED BY: Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality

TITLE: Rosemont Copper Co NADS 1 090408RELEASE DATE: April 2009PREPARED BY: Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality

TITLE: Rosemont Copper Co RAIS 041410RELEASE DATE: April 2010PREPARED BY: Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality

TITLE: Incomplete Response to Substantive Deficiencies

RELEASE DATE: December 2010PREPARED BY: Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality

Aquifer Protection Permit ApplicationTITLE: Rosemont Copper APP Appl . Volumes . 1-4cRELEASE DATE: February 2009PREPARED BY: Tetra Tech for submission to ADEQ

Rosemont ResponseTITLE: Response to Notice of Administrative

Deficiencies Letter (Transmittal of documents requested in letter April 4, 2009)

RELEASE DATE: May 2009PREPARED BY: Rosemont Copper

TITLE: Incomplete Response to Substantive Deficiencies, Inventory Number 106100

RELEASE DATE: January 2010PREPARED BY: Rosemont Copper

Aquifer protection studies looked at the flow of water at the Rosemont project site to determine potential long-term impact on the quality and quantity of water in the area .

Aquifer Protection



Technical Response Part 1TITLE: Comprehensive Request for Additional

Information (Response to ADEQ)RELEASE DATE: July 2010PROVIDED BY: Kimberlite Water Quality Permitting and

Compliance ServicesBrief Summary: This July 2010 letter from Kimberlite

Water Quality Permitting and Compliance Services (Rosemont’s engineering consultants) responds to an ADEQ letter from April 2010 that made specific requests for additional technical information about the Rosemont operations. The April 2010 ADEQ letter was part of the technical review of Rosemont’s application for an Aquifer Protection Permit, submitted in March 2009.

TITLE: Site Water Management Update, Volumes 1 - 5RELEASE DATE: April 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra Tech

TITLE: Infiltration, Seepage, Fate and Transport Modeling Report

RELEASE DATE: February 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: The projected amounts and quality of

water entering (infiltration) and leaving (seepage) three of Rosemont’s facilities have been thoroughly scrutinized. This report from Tetra Tech presents the results of infiltration and seepage, and fate (altered chemistry) and transport modeling for the proposed Waste Rock Storage Area, the Heap Leach Facility, and the Dry Stack Tailings Facility. Detailed laboratory studies and predictive modeling (including waste rock, heap leach residuals, and dry stack tailings residuals) for the three Rosemont facilities show that they will have little or no impact on the quality or quantity of water within the regional groundwater system. Another site-wide particle tracking model (fate and transport analysis) has been completed by Tetra Tech to confirm that these three facilities will not impact the regional system.

TITLE: Tailings GeochemistryRELEASE DATE: March 2009PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: Rosemont’s geochemistry studies

evaluated the potential impact to the regional aquifer from water emerging from the project site, especially from the Waste Rock Storage Area, Heap Leach Facility and Dry Stack Tailings Facility. This report from Tetra

Tech covers four samples of tailings material that were generated and tested for acid-generation capacity and release of metals. Tests conclude that water outflow will be no more acidic than present groundwater and concentrations of most specific metals were below detection in all of the samples. Overall, the geochemistry studies found little to no probability of pollution of the area aquifers.

TITLE: POC Well Diagram RPI-WSRELEASE DATE: July 2010

TITLE: Revisions to Figure 23 of APP ApplicationRELEASE DATE: July 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra Tech

TITLE: Rosemont Well Inventory UpdateRELEASE DATE: January 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra Tech

TITLE: Water Level Hydrographs 2007-2010RELEASE DATE: July 2010PREPARED BY: Montgomery & Associates

TITLE: Groundwater Level Contours and Depth to Water 2010RELEASE DATE: July 2010PREPARED BY: Montgomery & Associates

TITLE: Summary of Groundwater Level Measurements for Wells, Piezometers and Drill Holes

RELEASE DATE: July 2010PREPARED BY: Montgomery & Associates

TITLE: Site Surface Soils GeochemistryRELEASE DATE: January 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra Tech

TITLE: Surface Water Sample Sites, Cienega Creek and Davidson Canyon

RELEASE DATE: July 2010PREPARED BY: Montgomery & Associates

TITLE: Geochemical Sample Composite MethodRELEASE DATE: November 2009PREPARED BY: Tetra Tech

Technical Response Part 2TITLE: Attachment 1: Groundwater Flow Modeling

Conducted for Simulation of Proposed Rosemont Pit Dewatering and Post-Closure Revised Report

RELEASE DATE: August 2010PREPARED BY: Montgomery & Associates

TITLE: Attachment 2: Rosemont Groundwater Flow Model Summary

RELEASE DATE: August 2010PREPARED BY: Montgomery & Associates

TITLE: Attachment 3: SRK Consulting Technical Review of Montgomery’s 2009 Groundwater Flow Model

RELEASE DATE: August 2010PREPARED BY: SRK Consulting

TITLE: Attachment 4: Rosemont Geochemical Pit Lake Predictive Model Summary

RELEASE DATE: August 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra Tech

TITLE: Attachment 5: Rosemont Area-Wide Fate and Transport and DIA Summary


TITLE: Attachment 6: Rosemont Infiltration, Seepage, Fate and Transport Modeling Report Update


TITLE: Attachment 7: Technical Review of Tetra Tech’s Feb . 2010 Infiltration, Seepage, and Fate and Transport Modeling Report

RELEASE DATE: April 2010PREPARED BY: SRK Consulting

TITLE: Attachment 8: Physical and Mechanical Properties of Tailing and Waste Rockfill Materials

RELEASE DATE: August 2010PREPARED BY: AMEC

TITLE: Attachment 9: Rosemont Tailing Geochemistry Sample Sources


TITLE: Attachment 10: Rosemont Heap Leach Design Responses



TITLE: Attachment 11: Rosemont Flow-Through Drain Design Summary


TITLE: Attachment 12: PWTS Pond and Settling Basin Design Revisions

RELEASE DATE: August 2010PREPARED BY: M3 Engineering & Technology

TITLE: Attachment 13: Rosemont BADCT Analysis for the PWTS Pond


TITLE: Attachment 14: Rosemont Settling Basin BADCT Analysis


TITLE: Attachment 15: Rosemont Waste Rock Segregation Plan


TITLE: Attachment 16: Rosemont APP-Regulated Facility Locations


TITLE: Attachment 17: Rosemont APP-Regulated Facility Depth to Groundwater


TITLE: Attachment 18: Non-Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Application Revised

RELEASE DATE: August 2010PREPARED BY: Civil and Environmental Consultants, Inc.

TITLE: Comprehensive Request for Additional Information RELEASE DATE: August 2010PREPARED BY: Kimberlite Water Quality Permitting and

Compliance ServiceBrief Summary: This report from Kimberlite provides

responses and supporting information to the remaining comments from the ADEQ April 2010 letter that contained 52 specific requests for additional technical information about the Rosemont project. The August 2010 letter includes the following supplemental

information:• Tetra Tech Groundwater Flow Model summary, dated

August 31, 2010.• Tetra Tech Geochemical Pit Lake Predictive Model

Summary, dated August 24, 2010.• Tetra Tech Area-Wide Fate and Transport and DIA

Summary, dated August 31, 2010.•Civil and Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CEC) Non-

Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Application, dated August 2010.


Waste Management

TITLE: Non-Municipal Solid Waste Landfill ApplicationRELEASE DATE: August 2010PREPARED BY: Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.Brief Summary: A landfill to be constructed at the Rosemont

Copper site will function without any structural failures that could cause a discharge to the underlying aquifer. The potential for landfill impacts on groundwater is considered to be negligible, according to this Civil & Engineering Consultants, Inc. report.

These are some of the factors underlying the conclusions:•A hydraulic capture zone will be created in the aquifer

as a result of dewatering of the pit. It will extend out beyond the boundaries of the landfill and will exist during operations and persist for at least 100 years after mine closure.

•The Willow Canyon Formation under the landfill is several thousand feet thick and will yield little to no water seepage to wells.

•Physical features in the area and the 24-inch soil liner to be installed indicate that any potential releases from the landfill will not migrate to groundwater.

•No materials that produce hazardous wastes will be placed in the landfill.

When the landfill is closed, it will be covered by a minimum of 1.5 feet of soil overlain by six inches of topsoil that will be appropriately re-vegetated.

Post-closure objectives for the landfill will conform to typical rural value associated with Western open space. Those uses will include dispersed recreation, wildlife habitat and ranching.

The waste management study looked at potential landfill impacts to groundwater and Rosemont project land .

Waste Management



Biological

AgaveTITLE: Agave Survey of the Rosemont Holdings and Vicinity RELEASE DATE: March 2009PREPARED BY: WestLand Resources, Inc.Brief Summary: The Palmer’s Agave is the primary

foraging plant for the nectar-feeding and endangered lesser long-nosed bat (LLNB). WestLand conducted surveys to determine the number of agaves that might be impacted by the proposed activities at Rosemont and to try to gain an understanding of the importance of the agaves on the Rosemont property as a foraging resource for the bats. The primary conclusions are: •The bats heavily use Palmer’s agave during their late

summer, post-maternity dispersal, and it is likely that these bats are able to find every agave on the landscape that is flowering.

•Survey findings show no difference between the property and the surrounding region with regard to the value as a foraging resource for the bats.

Agaves within the proposed operation site will be impacted. However, the possible effects on threatened and endangered species, including the possible effects to foraging habitat for lesser long-nosed bat, will be reviewed by the U.S. Forest Service and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The Forest Service will initiate a preferred alternative.

BatsTITLE: Rosemont Holdings 2009 Bat Roost Survey RELEASE DATE: December 2009PREPARED BY: WestLand Resources, Inc.Brief Summary: In 2009, Westland’s survey efforts for

the lesser long-nosed bat (LLNB) focused on revisiting all roost sites that had previously supported nectar-feeding bats and sites that were expected to have the potential for bats based on late-season site visits in 2008. LLNB were observed in two of the 17 roost sites surveyed. One of these roost sites occurs within the project area and appears to be a day roost for nectar- and insect-feeding bats. In addition, a large colony (approximately 50 bats) of Townsend’s big-eared bats was found within the Rosemont project area.

Biological

Biological studies looked at the existing biota and assessed the potential impact mining operations may have on identified desert plant species and wildlife . Particular emphasis was placed on native species in the area .

Lesser Long-Nose Bat

Palmer’s Agave



TITLE: Lesser Long-Nosed Bat Survey of the Rosemont Holdings and Vicinity

RELEASE DATE: March 2009PREPARED BY: WestLand Resources, Inc.Brief Summary: The lesser long-nosed bat (LLNB) is

a migratory, endangered species that is present in southern Arizona during late spring to early fall. A detailed Westland study confirmed that the Rosemont project site has suitable bat foraging resources and day-roost sites. However, roosting on site by the bats is minimal. The most heavily used roost area in the region found during the survey is located on Coronado National Forest land northeast of the proposed project footprint.

Jaguars and Ocelot

TITLE: Comments on the Coronado National Forest Determination of Effect of the Rosemont Project on Jaguar and Ocelot

RELEASE DATE: January 2011PREPARED BY: WestLand Resources, Inc.Brief Summary: Based on conclusions derived from the best available scientific and commercial evidence

available to WestLand, as well as the guidance

provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s March 1998 Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, WestLand determined that there is no justification for a

Coronado National Forest finding of “may affect, likely to adversely affect” for the Rosemont Copper project on the jaguar or ocelot in Arizona. Rather, based on the evidence, a finding of insignificant and discountable effects for both species is most appropriate.

Orchids

TITLE: Field Surveys For Hexalectris Colemanii In Southeastern Arizona

RELEASE DATE: July 2010PREPARED BY: WestLand Resources, Inc.Brief Summary: WestLand surveyed for the orchid

Hexalectris colemanii in identified survey sites in the Rosemont project area and in remote regional areas similar to Rosemont to identify additional populations. The orchid was observed in known occupied sites at Sawmill Canyon, Cochise Stronghold West Canyon and McCleary Canyon, and at a new site in Wasp Canyon. With the results of the field surveys, the Cochise Stronghold population of H. colemanii is now the largest known population of this species. WestLand determined that new orchid sites are not likely to be found in the Rosemont project area in the future.

Pima Pineapple CactusTITLE: Pima Pineapple Cactus Survey: Proposed

Rosemont Project Santa Rita Road Waterline RELEASE DATE: December 2009PREPARED BY: WestLand Resources, Inc.Brief Summary: Pima Pineapple Cactus (PPC) is listed by

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act, though there is no

designated or proposed critical habitat for this species. WestLand Resources, Inc. conducted a survey for PPC

along approximately 22.4 linear miles of proposed waterline, including alternative routes as part of the proposed Rosemont project. Previously surveyed portions of the project area and portions with no potential for PPC were not surveyed. Fifty-four PPC were found along the waterline agreement, including 48 live and six dead.

The survey followed guidelines set forth in a previous USFWS document, and WestLand technicians with PPC experience walked transects approximately 15 feet apart to attain 100 percent coverage of the survey area. A single survey of suitable PPC habitat was completed. The majority of the survey was completed in September 2009 and waterline segments were added and surveyed in October and November 2009. Slope angle and surficial geology were used to assess portions of the project area that did not warrant survey. Areas considered unsuitable for PPC include sandy wash bottoms, rock outcrops, and slopes of 15 percent or greater.

The distribution pattern found in this survey is similar to the pattern found in the 2008 surveys conducted in the region for other alternative utility routes.

TITLE: Pima Pineapple Cactus Survey of the Proposed Rosemont Project Waterline Alignment

RELEASE DATE: March 2009PREPARED BY: WestLand Resources, Inc.Brief Summary: As part of the Rosemont project,

WestLand conducted a survey for Pima Pineapple Cactus (PPC) along an approximately 15.77 mile proposed waterline located along the northern and eastern boundary of the Santa Rita Experimental



Range. WestLand mapped, tagged and recorded data on 35 live PPC that were found during the survey efforts.

TITLE: Pima Pineapple Cactus Survey for the Rosemont Mine Southern Utility Line Alternative, East of Sahuarita, Pima County, Arizona

RELEASE DATE: August 2010PREPARED BY: WestLand Resources, Inc.Brief Summary: WestLand surveyed Pima Pineapple

Cactus (PPC) along the southern utility line alternative to determine general distribution of PPC within this alignment. The survey found 52 PPC within this powerline alternative.

RanidTITLE: 2008 Ranid Survey of The Rosemont Holdings

and Vicinity RELEASE DATE: April 2009PREPARED BY: WestLand Resources, Inc.Brief Summary: WestLand conducted surveys for ranid

frogs (Chiricahua and lowland leopard frogs) within and in the vicinity of the Rosemont holdings. The Chiricahua leopard frog is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. This frog requires permanent or nearly permanent water sources.

Chiricahua leopard frogs were observed in several sites in and around the Rosemont holdings, one site of which is within the Rosemont project area, while other sites are within the holdings, but are outside the anticipated project impact area. WestLand’s 2008 survey findings included observations of ranids at five locations that had no previous known records.

TITLE: 2009 Ranid Survey of the Rosemont Holdings and Vicinity

RELEASE DATE: December 2009PREPARED BY: WestLand Resources, Inc.Brief Summary: Following the frog (ranid) surveys

completed in 2008, WestLand conducted further surveys in 2009 to determine whether ranids were present in the Rosemont holdings and vicinity, and to search for potential ranid habitat along drainage-ways between the Rosemont holdings and Cienega Creek. No ranids were observed within the proposed Rosemont footprint or the Rosemont holdings during the 2009 survey.

Snails

TITLE: Ferris Missing Stations 48-52RELEASE DATE: October 2010SUMMARY: Available - From the Academy of Natural

Sciences of Philadelphia

TITLE: 1978 Invertebrates (Other Than Insects) of the Rosemont Area

RELEASE DATE: October 2010PREPARED BY: Walter MillerBrief Summary: A report in the University of Arizona,

Science-Engineering Library and also Special Collections - Invertebrates (Other Than Insects) of the Rosemont area, 1978-indicated that the Rosemont area does not contain known endangered species of mollusks or arachnids.

TITLE: Pilsbry and Ferris 1923 pg 51RELEASE DATE: October 2010PREPARED BY: Academy of Natural Sciences of

PhiladelphiaSUMMARY: Available – From the Academy of Natural

Sciences of Philadelphia

TITLE: Pilsbry and Ferris 1923 pgs 68 and 69RELEASE DATE: October 2010PREPARED BY: Academy of Natural Sciences of PhiladelphiaSUMMARY: Available - From the Academy of Natural

Sciences of Philadelphia.

TITLE: Talus Snails (Sonorella, Helminthoglyptidae) and Talus Slopes of the North Ridge of the Santa Rita Mountains, Pima County, Arizona

RELEASE DATE: April 2010PREPARED BY: Westland Resources, Inc.

Brief Summary: Two species of talus snail were collected near Rosemont in 1917, in the 1960s and 1970s, along the north ridge of the Santa Rita Mountains. To better understand the distribution and species of Sonorella along the north ridge of the Santa Rita Mountains, WestLand visited the two major museum collections of this genus and conducted field surveys in 2008 and 2009 along both the east and west slopes of the north ridge and in 2008 the canyons east of the north ridge. The two species were well represented on both sides of the north ridge and both occurred in most of the nearby talus slopes.

Soils

TITLE: UA Final Report for Phase 1RELEASE DATE: July 2007PREPARED BY: J. Fehmi, University of Arizona, School of

Natural ResourcesBrief Summary: Preventing soil loss from the proposed

mining site, reclaiming its capacity for productive use, and returning the site to a higher functioning plant community is the goal of this Rosemont reclamation effort. There is substantial cover of several native species of trees that are encroaching upon sites that have had a lower than normal fire frequency often combined with historical overgrazing by cattle. Once the canopy cover of these species gets above approximately 25 percent, soil erosion and soil loss



often becomes a serious issue and the overall site becomes unstable. Proposed seed mixes—now being tested in greenhouses under conditions that mimic the outdoor proposed mining site environment—should reclaim the site to a more ideal condition. Additionally, soil and surface amendments have been selected to encourage the establishment of new seedlings. This study by the University of Arizona School of Natural Resources also includes the evaluation of seeded and unseeded sites within the footprint of the Florida fire.

TITLE: UA Phase II Preliminary (in progress) Report V .1RELEASE DATE: March 2008PREPARED BY: J. Fehmi, University of Arizona, School of

Natural ResourcesBrief Summary: Preventing soil loss from the proposed

mining site, reclaiming its capacity for productive use, and returning the site to a higher functioning plant community is the goal of the Rosemont reclamation effort. There is substantial cover of several native species of trees that are encroaching upon sites that have had a lower than normal fire frequency often combined with historical overgrazing by cattle. Once the canopy cover of these species gets above approximately 25 percent, soil erosion and soil loss often becomes a serious issue and the overall site becomes unstable. This report by the University of Arizona School of Natural Resources contains preliminary results from the greenhouse research of proposed seed mixes to reclaim the site to a more ideal condition.

The second part of this report is the result of the evaluation of seeding after the Florida fire in the Coronado National Forest. The report implies that seeding after the fire did not result in significant establishment of seeded species, but rather natural regeneration appears responsible for the vegetation response after the fire.

TITLE: UA Phase II Project Report FinalRELEASE DATE: December 2008PREPARED BY: J. Fehmi, T. Kong & L. Wood, University

of Arizona, School of Natural ResourcesBrief Summary: The University of Arizona School of

Natural Resources evaluated the reclamation potential of native seeds to grow in soils on the Rosemont site. Four seed mixes, three soil types, three rainfall scenarios and three amendment treatments were tested. The greenhouse study revealed that the ideal combination for reclamation is to seed the selected species mix on Gila or Glance soils with average or high rainfall, and

amend with tackified straw. However, tests show that vegetation could be established across all soil types and rainfall scenarios.

TITLE: Restoring Agave Palmeri Populations: Critical Factors for Seeding and Transplanting in Disturbed Landscapes (A Thesis for the School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Arizona)

RELEASE DATE: July 2010PREPARED BY: Laura Lynn PavliscakBrief Summary: Critical factors for the emergence

and establishment of Agave Palmeri in disturbed landscapes were studied in this thesis by Laura Lynn Pavliscak, which concluded that wild transplants of all sizes from the study responded positively when replanting coincided with seasonal rainfall, suggesting that salvaging and replanting may be a promising restoration strategy. The thesis also looked at salvage and transplantation as a way to restore and maintain agave populations within areas of disturbance. Of specific interest was the growth response of various

size classes of Agave Palmeri to the prolonged drought stress from storage before replanting and the effect of water availability directly after replanting.



Geochemical

TITLE: Baseline Geochemical CharacterizationRELEASE DATE: June 2007PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: Management of materials is vital to

the success of operations planning. As part of the feasibility-level design work, Tetra Tech characterized the tailings and waste rock materials, with the goal of defining the material that will be placed in the waste rock storage area. The initial sample selection consisted of 375 coarse reject samples collected from geologic core drilling series that were cored and logged by Rosemont Copper. Characterization is defined as the geochemical makeup and their potential affect on the environment of the materials being handled and processed at the site.

In general, the results from Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure testing were below the detection limits for most metals based on the analytical method used. The results of the Meteoric Water Mobility Procedure testing also showed that most elements were below the method detection limit. Other tests conducted on the samples included acid-based accounting, kinetic, and whole rock analysis. The tests indicated that the waste rock is not acid generating and will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards.

TITLE: Bolsa Quartzite – Acid-Base Accounting Properties and Humidity Cell Testing Results

RELEASE DATE: October 2009PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: The geochemical testing program

characterized the acid-base accounting properties of the expected waste rock materials. Portions of the Bolsa Quartzite have the potential, upon weathering, to generate low-pH leachate. The Bolsa Quartzite is anticipated to comprise only 1.9 percent of the total waste rock mass, and 11 percent of the final pit exposure wall. Therefore it will be easy to blend with other acid-neutralizing rock types. In the expected pit lake, any acidity generated by the Bolsa exposed in the pit wall will be neutralized by the pit lake water and buffered by the predominantly acid-neutralizing rock types.

Geochemical

Geochemical studies looked at the amount and type of materials that may be produced by the Rosemont project, and potential impact on groundwater and surrounding soils .



TITLE: Geochemistry Characterization Addendum 1RELEASE DATE: November 2007PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: This addendum to Tetra Tech’s Baseline

Geochemical Characterization Report focuses on potential water quality impacts in the waste rock storage area and the dry stack tailing facility. Much of the material is considered inert and requires no additional characterization. Some additional characterization and additional sampling may be required as part of the final design phase of the project.

TITLE: Evaluation of Rosemont Geochemical Testing Results and Local Water Quality

RELEASE DATE: May 2009PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: The Rosemont Copper project includes

a Heap Leach Facility, a Waste Rock Storage Area, and a Dry Stack Tailings Facility. This Technical Memorandum from Tetra Tech presents: 1) a summary of the acid-base accounting (ABA) properties of the waste rock and tailings samples tested to date, and 2) an evaluation of geochemical leaching results from waste rock and tailings relative to both local ground/surface water conditions and to Arizona standards for human drinking water and agricultural livestock watering.

Evaluation of ABA data for the Rosemont geologic materials tested to date indicate that the bulk waste rock and tailings properties are classified as inert and are non-acid generating. Evaluation of short-term leach test data from waste rock and tailings showed that bulk leachate composition, as measured by total dissolved solids (TDS), was within the range of natural TDS values observed in stormwater and groundwater. Arsenic concentrations, while exceeding the human drinking water standard, approximate naturally occurring levels, they are within livestock ranges and indicative of the rock type rather than a change in chemistry due to operational processes. It is unlikely that seepage from the Rosemont facilities will significantly change the chemical compositions of the groundwater at the site.

TITLE: Rosemont Geochemical Sample Composite Method

RELEASE DATE: November 2009PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: Tetra Tech used composites of waste

rock samples to test for geochemical characterization. More than 200 composite samples of drill core and other coarse rejects, representing waste rock material,

were tested in conjunction with the Phase 1 and Phase 2 geochemical testing programs.

The coarse reject material was bagged in five foot intervals. The intervals selected for testing totaled approximately 50 feet of continuous drill core for a particular rock type. Once all coarse reject bags were collected, the bags were shipped under chain of custody for compositing.

The materials were combined and run through the splitter until a well-homogenized sample was achieved. The material was then reduced to the appropriate testing volume.

TITLE: Geochemistry Sample UpdateRELEASE DATE: November 2009PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: A Tetra Tech review of the 2006-

2007 geochemical testing data was conducted for the Rosemont project to identify potential data gaps in the waste rock characterization program. A statistical evaluation of the acid-base accounting (ABA) data indicated that additional characterization was needed to ensure that all rock types were adequately characterized with respect to their acid-generating capacity.

Upon completion of the 2006-2007 geochemical testing, a total of 165 rock samples were tested for ABA. In 2008, an additional 43 rock samples underwent ABA testing, bringing the total to count to 208 samples. The majority of samples are classified as non-acid generating. Four samples of the Bolsa Quartzite tested in 2008, were considered potentially acid generating. These results suggest additional characterization should be conducted on this rock type using humidity cell testing.

TITLE: RCC Geochemical Pit Lake Predictive ModelRELEASE DATE: February 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: Tetra Tech used Montgomery &

Associates pit filling data as an input to a geochemical pit lake predictive model. The model showed the quality of the pit lake water was only slightly changed from local groundwater after 200 years of simulation. The data shows that development of an acidic pit lake is not expected, even beyond the 200-year modeling period.

Laboratory testing was conducted to determine the chemical loading terms required for the geochemical model. All of the parameters modeled were below the primary Aquifer Water Quality Standards (AWQS) for drinking water in Arizona at the end of the 200-year simulation period.

TITLE: Rosemont Geochemical Pit Lake Predictive Model Summary

RELEASE DATE: August 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: Once mining and mineral processing

activities cease, dewatering of the open pit will be terminated. Montgomery & Associates’ 2009 groundwater flow model for the Rosemont site concluded that a pit lake is expected to form in the open pit; and based on the expected inflows to the pit lake in relation to the annual evaporation from the pit lake surface, the pit lake will be a hydraulic sink. The overall effect of the hydraulic sink will be to draw water into the system and not allow water or its associated chemical mass to exit the pit (M&A, 2009).

In addition to the hydrogeological analysis performed by M&A, the expected chemical conditions within the pit lake were analyzed by Tetra Tech. The quality of the pit lake water was only slightly changed from local groundwater after 200 years of model simulation. The development of an acidic pit lake is not expected, even beyond the 200-year modeling period.

TITLE: Geochemical Pit Lake Predictive Model Revision 1RELEASE DATE: November 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: Tetra Tech analyzed the chemical

conditions within the anticipated pit lake at Rosemont, including geochemical testing of the materials comprising the ultimate pit walls and the quality of local groundwater. Most of the water reporting to the pit lake will come from local groundwater, with the remaining comprised of direct precipitation and runoff from the pit walls. The pit lake model showed that the quality of the pit lake water was only slightly changed from local groundwater after 200 years of simulation. At the 200-year simulation mark under the elevated chemical loading scenario, the concentrations of some dissolved chemical constituents were shown to increase by a factor of up to 1.7 relative to local groundwater due to the evaporative loss of water.

Even in the elevated chemical loading scenario, metals are expected to remain at levels in the parts per billion range (less than one part per million).


TITLE: Site Surface Soils GeochemistryRELEASE DATE: January 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: Technical Summary: This technical

memorandum from Tetra Tech assessed the potential for leaching of pollutants from surface soils via seepage generated from the dry stack tailings facility or waste rock storage areas.

Soils located in the vicinity of the proposed open pit have the potential to release higher concentrations of certain constituents (e.g., arsenic, iron, and sulfate), when compared to soil from the proposed dry stack tailings facility and waste rock storage area. This is due to the natural mineralization present in the pit area. Under actual field conditions, the leachate will be subject to additional natural dilution, dispersion, and attenuation processes, and it is unlikely that seepage from the Rosemont tailings or waste rock facilities will cause additional significant release of pollutants from project site soils.

TITLE: Tailings GeochemistryRELEASE DATE: October 2008 and March 2009PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: Tetra Tech tested four samples of tailings

materials for acid-generating capacity and metal release using standard static and short-term leaching procedures. Results indicate that the tailings material generally contains less than 0.01 percent sulfide-sulfur, can be classified as inert with respect to acid generation, and posses a high capacity for acid neutralization.

TITLE: Rosemont Tailings Geochemistry Sample Sources Update

RELEASE DATE: August 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: In addition to the tailings samples

prepared in 2006-2008, Tetra Tech prepared six new samples to better characterize the dry stack tailings associated with the proposed Rosemont Copper project. Tailings samples were generated from each of the five major sulfide ore rock units and one composite sample was generated from ore material representing production years four through seven.

Geochemical characterization of the Rosemont tailings samples indicates that the tailings generally contain less than 0.30 percent sulfide-sulfur, present essentially no risk associated with acid generation, and possess a high capacity for acid neutralization. The tailings were also subjected to short-term leaching tests (SPLP and MWMP) which produced only very low

metal concentrations in the resulting leachates.

TITLE: Preliminary Trip Report and Phase 1 Sampling & Analysis Plan

RELEASE DATE: July 2006PREPARED BY: Vector ArizonaBrief Summary: Vector staff traveled to the Rosemont

site to evaluate the site characteristics including topography, surface water features, and geology. The team also obtained geologic information to be used in the Phase 1 geochemical sampling program. Phase 1 included visiting the site to assess and take samples. In Phase II, Vector collected and analyzed samples for static geochemical tests.

TITLE: Waste Rock Material CharacterizationRELEASE DATE: January 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: Tetra Tech prepared an estimate of the

waste rock material composition within the Rosemont Ridge Landform based on a mine production schedule provided by Rosemont Copper. The estimate was based on timing of material excavation and development of the facilities as defined by the schedule.

A soil layer may be placed on the outer surfaces and tilled/ripped into the waste rock. The soil layer may include salvaged soil and tertiary gravel from within the limits of the open pit or the Rosemont Ridge Landform.



Geotechnical

TITLE: Geologic Hazards AssessmentRELEASE DATE: June 2007PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: This report presents Tetra Tech’s

Geologic Hazards Assessment of the Rosemont Copper project site.

Primary conclusions are that there is a risk for rock fall hazards in the western areas of the Project site; there has been previous historic mining activity on the site, which poses negligible hazards to the Rosemont Project; the project site comprises soils of moderate erosion potential; there are no areas of high soil erosion potential; and old, earthen dams scattered across the property may contain soft soils that may prove susceptible to collapse and/or differential settlement. The report includes a total of 13 conclusions and five recommendations.

TITLE: Geotechnical Study ReportRELEASE DATE: June 2007PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: In 2006, Tetra Tech was tasked with

providing professional engineering services related to initial site-wide geotechnical studies to support the design of the leach pad and associated ponds, tailings dry stack facilities, and water management facilities for the Rosemont project.

The investigations characterized the site conditions of a variety of facilities and areas using borehole drilling, test pit excavating, surface geology mapping, field penetration and hydraulic testing, geotechnical logging of boreholes, geophysical ground surveys, and laboratory testing of selected samples.

TITLE: Rosemont Plant Site Geotechnical ReportRELEASE DATE: August 2009PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: A summary of geotechnical data and

calculations specific to the proposed facilities and primary access road for the Rosemont project was prepared by Tetra Tech.

The geotechnical recommendations are based on the borings drilled, the subsurface conditions observed, the results of laboratory and field testing, and Tetra Tech’s experience in the area. The observations made and the samples collected for testing are believed to be representative of the site.

Geotechnical studies looked at potential land hazards from previous mines on the property, as well as the planned Rosemont project operations .

Geotechnical



Groundwater

Infi ltration-Fate Transport ModelingTITLE: Rosemont Area-Wide Fate and Transport and

DIA SummaryRELEASE DATE: August 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: As part of the effort to protect

groundwater, Rosemont Copper has studied water movement in an area covering 475 square miles to assess the possible impact of its mine on the area aquifer. This Tetra Tech study looked carefully at pit dewatering (removing water for the mining operation) and aquifer recharge. The analysis concluded that there would be little impact on groundwater quality. Rosemont carried out a Discharge Impact Area (DIA) analysis by reviewing the “fate and transport” of the materials being managed. (“Fate” refers to possible chemical reactions that will form new substances, and “transport” refers to migration of chemicals.)

The analysis drew conclusions regarding two main issues:

1) Pit dewatering (removal of water from the open pit during mining), and evaporation from the lake formed after closure of the mine, will create a stable groundwater capture zone where water will flow into the lake. The model showed this activity will have no impact on groundwater quality.

2) Aquifer recharge: Outside the capture zone, the operations have the potential to impact down-gradient groundwater quality, but the anticipated quality of recharge from the dry-stack tailings and the mine’s flow-through drain system will be equivalent to or better than the current background groundwater quality for all analyzed parameters. Thus project recharge is not predicted to impact down-gradient groundwater quality.

The DIA report responds specifically to a series of other questions from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) concerning hydrology and engineering issues.

This technical memorandum documents the results of Rosemont’s analysis, based on regional groundwater

Groundwater

Groundwater studies looked at the potential for impact on water quality at the site, as well as on surrounding aquifers . The studies also provide predictions for the state of the open pit lake after project operations cease .



flow models. Such tests are required by the ADEQ as part of the Aquifer Protection Permit application.

TITLE: Infiltration, Seepage, Fate and Transport Modeling Report

RELEASE DATE: February 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: In its efforts to protect the environment

and groundwater, Rosemont asked Tetra Tech to run modeling analysis on infiltration (entering precipitation) and seepage (outward flow), and on “fate and transport.” The report found there would be little or no seepage under average climate conditions; a passive treatment system will ensure that any drain-down will be non-polluting and a 20-feet-thick cover of waste rock placed over spent ore and ponds will help protect area groundwater.

Here are some key findings:•The Waste Rock Storage Area (WRSA), Heap Leach

Facility (HLF), and Dry Stack Tailings Facility (DSTF) are not expected to impact the regional groundwater system in terms of infiltration and seepage.

•After the operations are closed, the former leach solution ponds may be converted into a passive treatment system, and any drain-down would pass through the treatment system before being discharged.

•The high evaporation rate in the area will limit the infiltration and prevent seepage from the WRSA under average climate conditions.

•For the DSTF, results of the modeling were compared to the Arizona Aquifer Water Quality Standard (AWQS); none of the constituents exceeded those standards.

•For the HLF, any seepage from the heap will be captured on the liner and report to the leach solutions ponds for treatment.

•Fate and transport modeling further supports the conclusion that the three facilities are not expected to impact the regional ground water system.

In general, construction and eventual closure plans will result in effective systems.

TITLE: Infiltration, Seepage, Fate and Transport Modeling Report, Revision 1

RELEASE DATE: August 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: Rosemont will construct three major

facilities in addition to the Open Pit: a Waste Rock

Storage Area (WRSA), a Heap Leach Facility (HLF), and a Dry Stack Tailings Facility (DSTF). Engineering studies show these facilities will have little impact on groundwater quality or quantity.

This Tetra Tech report focuses on potential impact of those three facilities on regional groundwater after closure. Rosemont will re-grade, cover, and re-vegetate the Rosemont Ridge Landform, which is the consolidated WRSA, HLF and DSTF.

Seepage is one environmental concern. Tests showed that no seepage of collected water from precipitation (rainfall or snowmelt) occurred under average conditions from any of the facilities, nor did seepage develop from the WRSA or the HLF for two storm events modeled.

Fate and transport modeling shows that there may be a potential for other seepage to reach the base of the Waste Rock Storage area. That seepage may have constituents slightly above the Arizona Aquifer Water Quality Standard, but in these cases the concentrations will not be higher than the natural background levels in the area.

In general, detailed laboratory studies and predictive modeling show that the three facilities will have little or no impact on the quality or quantity of water in the regional groundwater system.

TITLE: Rosemont Infiltration, Seepage, Fate and Transport Response to Comments

RELEASE DATE: November 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra Tech

Long Term Pumping TestsTITLE: Analysis of Long-Term, Multi-Well Aquifer Test

Volumes 1-4 and Final RELEASE DATE: May 2009

Miscellaneous Technical MemorandaTITLE: Rosemont APP-Regulated Facility Depth to

GroundwaterRELEASE DATE: August 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra Tech

TITLE: Dewatering for the Planned Rosemont MineRELEASE DATE: November 2007PREPARED BY: Call & Nicholas, Inc

Brief Summary: Groundwater in mine slopes can create pressures that can weaken the slopes (resulting in a loss of shear strength), and this in turn can result in flatter mine slopes or slope failures. Rosemont’s approach to pit dewatering (removal of water for mining) thus will depend on slope stability requirements.

Depressurization by dewatering will be required at three locations: the east wall of the Willow Canyon Formation; the south wall alluvial conglomerate; and the northwest wall Bolsa Quartzite.

A memorandum from Call & Nicholas, Inc. (CNI) outlines several alternatives for dealing with mine dewatering: • Use of horizontal drains drilled into bench faces • Pumping from vertical wells • A combination of horizontal drains and pumping wells • An underground drift from which fans of dewatering holes are drilled behind the pit slope • No active depressurization except what results from the mining of the pit CNI recommends that a cost-benefit analysis be done

to further study the tradeoff between dewatering costs and reduced stripping costs. CNI also recommends techniques specific to each location.

TITLE: Rosemont Infiltration AnalysisRELEASE DATE: April 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra Tech

TITLE: Comparison of Natural Fluctuation in Groundwater Level to Provisional Drawdown Projects, Rosemont Mine

RELEASE DATE: March 2010PREPARED BY: Montgomery & Associates

TITLE: Rosemont Well Inventory UpdateRELEASE DATE: January 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra Tech

TITLE: Responses to SRK’s Technical Review Comments on Tetra Tech’s Groundwater Flow Model Technical Memoranda

RELEASE DATE: November 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra Tech

Monitoring ReportsTITLE: Results of Phase 2 Hydrogeologic Investigations

and Monitoring ProgramRELEASE DATE: February 2009


PREPARED BY: Montgomery & Associates, Inc.SUMMARY: Available (Vol. 1: Text, Tables and Figures)

TITLE: Results of Phase 2 Hydrogeologic Investigations and Monitoring Program

RELEASE DATE: February 2009PREPARED BY: Montgomery & Associates, Inc.SUMMARY: Available (Vol. 2: Appendix A and B)

TITLE: Results of Phase 2 Hydrogeologic Investigations and Monitoring Program

RELEASE DATE: February 2009PREPARED BY: Montgomery & Associates, Inc.SUMMARY: Available (Vol. 2: Appendix C)

TITLE: Analysis of Long-Term, Multi-Well Aquifer Test, November 2008 through January 2009

RELEASE DATE: May 2009PREPARED BY: Montgomery & Associates, Inc.Brief Summary: Montgomery & Associates conducted

a long-term, multi-well aquifer test in and near the planned mining operations site as part of the evaluation of the hydro geologic characteristics of the Rosemont site. To understand the capacity of the aquifer to transmit groundwater, Montgomery & Associates tested a number of wells near the proposed mine site and found the aquifer was moderately transmissive where ground conditions were strongly faulted and fractured, and was less so in other poorly fractured areas.

The study pumped water from five wells and monitored 46 observation wells and piezometers (small-diameter observation wells), four springs and the McCleary Dam underflow. The results showed that with one exception, no apparent change in spring flow occurred as a result of test pumping. Flow at one spring stopped during the test, most likely due to its close proximity to one of the pumped wells.

The study cautioned that only a small portion of the total Rosemont aquifer, the part nearest the operations can be characterized by this testing program. The report does not address more distant areas.

Montgomery ModelingTITLE: Groundwater Flow Modeling Conducted for

Simulation of Proposed Rosemont Pit Dewatering and Post-Closure

RELEASE DATE: October 2009PREPARED BY: Montgomery & Associates, Inc.

Brief Summary: Montgomery & Associates’ engineering studies simulated the hydrologic impact of the Rosemont operations during operations and 100 years after its closure. The studies found little expected impact on area groundwater during that 122-year period. The company examined groundwater flow during pit development, during pit dewatering and for 100 years of groundwater recovery and potential pit lake development after closure of the mine.

The study was expanded to encompass the Cienega Creek basin using data from previous investigations. The data also projected that impacts on the basin would be negligible.

Projected pit inflows, pit lake development, and impacts on the ground water system are consistent with observations in similar open pit mines in fractured rock flow systems in arid climates. Projected pit inflow over the 122-year simulation period is approximately 200 gallons per minute (gpm). Based on projections concerning the pit lake 100 years after closure, it is estimated that the pit lake will remain a non-polluting hydraulic sink.

TITLE: Groundwater Flow Modeling Conducted for Simulation of Proposed Rosemont Pit Dewatering and Post-Closure, Vol . 1

RELEASE DATE: August 2010PREPARED BY: Montgomery & Associates, Inc.Brief Summary: There has been considerable interest

in Rosemont’s very long-term effects on the area groundwater. Montgomery & Associates engineering projections indicate that 1,000 years after closure, the open pit lake will remain a complete hydraulic sink, ensuring containment of the pit lake water. More distant from the proposed pit, the extent of the groundwater drawdown contour is less reliable due to the unknown degree of hydraulic connections, variations in aquifer properties and discrete features inherent in the fracture rock system.

Model projections indicate that the groundwater level drawdown 1,000 years after the end of mining will affect local riparian areas and may affect perennial streamflow, but the quantity of any reductions in streamflow will be negligible. Mining is not expected to disrupt the groundwater flow system in the project area and for a majority of the Cienega Creek basin.

Tetra Tech ModelingTITLE: Groundwater Flow Model Construction and

CalibrationRELEASE DATE: July 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: Tetra Tech describes the construction of

three regional groundwater flow models representing pre-mining (steady state), active mining, and post-closure mining conditions. Calibration of the steady-state model also is presented. These models were used to assess the potential impact on regional water resources due to the Rosemont project.

TITLE: Hydraulic Property EstimatesRELEASE DATE: July 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: Tetra Tech reevaluated hydraulic tests

conducted by Montgomery & Associates as part of their hydrologic characterization studies. The resulting hydraulic properties (hydraulic conductivity and storage) were used to constrain the flow model calibration. • The short-term, single-well tests were reanalyzed

based on Tetra Tech’s test interpretations. Although there were differences with Montgomery & Associates interpretations, the overall range and average of estimates was essentially unchanged.

• The long-term, multi-well tests were analyzed with two-dimensional, radial-flow models. This analysis resulted in updated horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivity estimates and specific-storage estimates.

TITLE: Predictive Groundwater Flow Modeling ResultsRELEASE DATE: July 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: In this technical memorandum, Tetra

Tech describes how the open pit dewatering and the subsequent permanent lake (pit lake) formation upon mining cessation will affect the regional groundwater-flow system. Predictive simulations at the end of mining, and at 20 years, 50 years, 150 years and 1,000 years post-mining are presented.

At a glance, removing water from the Rosemont open pit (dewatering) will continue throughout the 20 to 25 years of operation, resulting in a cone-shaped depression of the water table. After closure, the pit will naturally refill from groundwater, surface-water and precipitation, and a pit lake will form. It is expected that the pit will remain a perpetual hydraulic sink at a stabilized (equilibrium) condition due to the high


evaporation rate in the area. Some groundwater will perpetually flow into the pit

lake, although at a much lower rate after the active mining and dewatering process is completed, and that amount will steadily decrease. Groundwater capture is accounted for from several sources: significant recharge increases due to flow-through drains, changes in flows from lateral boundary conditions, and stream flow capture. Additionally, changes to riparian vegetation evapotranspiration accounts for a small percent of groundwater flow to the pit lake.

Any uncertainty in these predictions will be assessed as part of the sensitivity analysis to be documented in companion technical memorandums.

TITLE: Hydrogeologic Framework ModelRELEASE DATE: July 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: This Tetra Tech technical memorandum

discussed how the two-dimensional hydrogeologic data developed and reported by Montgomery & Associates was transformed into a three-dimensional (3D) hydrogeologic framework model. Consistency checks confirmed that the three-dimensional model appropriately represented the horizontal hydrogeologic slices and the vertical cross sections developed for the model domain. The 3D framework model was then used as the geologic basis for the Tetra Tech three-dimensional regional groundwater flow model.

TITLE: Steady-State Sensitivity AnalysesRELEASE DATE: July 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: This Tetra Tech technical memorandum

discusses the parameter sensitivity analysis performed on the steady-state groundwater flow model. The model inputs with the most impact on the steady-state model fit and modeling analyses were identified. The sensitivity analysis indicated that nearly optimal parameter values were used in the steady-state model. Only small model fit improvements to the observed data were indicated for select parameters. However, simulations with these parameter values resulted in unrealistic conditions, such as water levels above land surface.

TITLE: Groundwater Flow Model Sensitivity Analysis RELEASE DATE: August 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: This Tetra Tech technical memorandum

presents the sensitivity analyses performed on three groundwater flow models for the Rosemont Copper project. The models represent pre-mining steady state conditions, active mining conditions, and post-mining/post-closure conditions. Sensitivity analysis parameters include horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivity, hydraulic conductivity of the quartz-porphyry dike, specific storage, specific yield, and recharge. In addition, parameters specific to the pit-lake development in the post-closure model were evaluated to determine the sensitivity to changes in precipitation, evaporation, and pit-wall runoff. For completeness, this memorandum also includes the steady-state model sensitivity analysis summarized in a previous memorandum.

TITLE: Regional Groundwater Flow ModelRELEASE DATE: November 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: In addition to the regional groundwater

flow model developed by Montgomery & Associates, Tetra Tech prepared a second model for the purpose of predicting possible impacts to groundwater resources due to the planned Rosemont project. This model was developed to predict the potential effects on the surface-water and groundwater hydrology of Davidson Canyon and the Cienega Creek Basin, and included the effects on groundwater levels, spring flows, surface-water flows, and riparian areas.

West Side of the Santa Rita MountainsMiscellaneous Technical Memoranda

TITLE: ADWR Tech Memo April UpdateRELEASE DATE: April 2009PREPARED BY: Montgomery & Associates, Inc.

TITLE: Updates to ADWR Model in Sahuarita/Green Valley Area

RELEASE DATE: December 2008PREPARED BY: Montgomery & Associates, Inc.

Monitoring ReportsTITLE: Results of Construction, Development and Testing

for Production Water Well (D-17-14) 21 add [RC-2]RELEASE DATE: April 2009PREPARED BY: Errol L. Montgomery & Associates, Inc.

TITLE: Well Results E-1RELEASE DATE: April 2007PREPARED BY: Montgomery & Associates, Inc.

Montgomery ModelTITLE: Groundwater Flow Modeling Conducted for

Simulation of Rosemont Copper’s Proposed Mine Supply Pumping, Sahuarita, Arizona

RELEASE DATE: April 2009PREPARED BY: Montgomery & Associates, Inc.

TITLE: Addendum to Groundwater Flow Modeling Conducted for Simulation of Rosemont Copper’s Proposed Mine Supply Pumping Sahuarita, Arizona

RELEASE DATE: October 2010PREPARED BY: Montgomery & Associates, Inc.


Water Supply

TITLE: Rosemont Mine Water Delivery System Preliminary Design Report

RELEASE DATE: July 2009PREPARED BY: Stantec Consulting Inc.Brief Summary: Rosemont operations will use about 5,500

acre-feet of fresh make-up water per year, or 3,400 gallons per minute (gpm). Use of water conservation techniques and recycling will seek to minimize that consumption. Delivery rates are expected to match consumption rates most of the time.

During start-up and at certain times of seasonal peak demand, the mine will require delivery of more than the typical 3,400 gpm rate. The water system has been designed to deliver up to 5,000 gpm to provide for start-up and peak demand and in case the delivery system is out of service for short periods of time.

Wells on private property drilled to approximately 1,000 feet will deliver water for operations. Test wells in these locations show a potential of producing 1,500 gpm. Groundwater near the wells is at a depth of approximately 250 feet.

Steel tanks at ground level will hold the water until several booster stations pump it from 2,735 feet elevation to the highest point in the delivery line northeast of Gunsight Pass at 5,600 feet.

Most of the land for the water delivery pipeline is owned by the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD). For the roughly 12 miles of easement crossing land owned by ASLD, the pipeline will be covered by soil to a depth of 36 inches. On land owned by Rosemont, it will be covered to a depth of 24 inches.

This original alignment of the iron pipeline was selected to minimize the impact on the Santa Rita Experimental Range and to allow maximum potential for development of property adjacent to the new line and was sited mainly north and east of the Experimental Range. (Current alignments preferred by the landowner do not match this original location.)

The water supply study created a baseline and compared and contrasted potential impacts of Rosemont project operations on area water tables .

Water Supply



Lighting

Technical Memorandum

TITLE: Rosemont Mine Outdoor Lighting & Pima County Outdoor Lighting Code

RELEASE DATE: May 2009PREPARED BY: M3 Engineering & Technology Inc.Brief Summary: The 2006 Pima County Outdoor Lighting

Code regulates the amount of light permitted outdoors within the City of Tucson and Pima County. The Rosemont mine is within an area of Pima County that is the most restrictive lighting area of the code. While the mine is exempt from complying with the lighting code, Rosemont Copper plans to operate within the intent of that code as long as mine safety and operations are not compromised.

The specific type of light sources recommended for each area of the Rosemont mine is dependent upon the work station activity; pedestrian, vehicle and equipment traffic; and potential for hazards. Rosemont Copper is working with heavy equipment manufacturers and lighting manufacturers to identify light sources and shielding methods to further limit any light pollution.

Lighting

The lighting study looked at the need for lights that will limit light pollution and comply with strict Pima County lighting codes .


Noise

TITLE: Background Ambient Noise StudyRELEASE DATE: October 2008PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: Because there are areas of rural residences

along Highway 83 and near the southern portion of the Rosemont Copper project, Rosemont commissioned a study of the noise conditions in the project area. The study conducted by Tetra Tech over a five-day period in 2008 involved concurrent ambient noise monitoring at multiple locations within or near the proposed operations area. A preliminary evaluation also was made of the noise decline between the southern portion of the proposed operations area and the nearest residences. The study demonstrated the low background noise conditions expected for areas with limited development and few major roadways.

TITLE: Supplemental Noise Study RELEASE DATE: April 2009PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: On behalf of Rosemont Copper, Tetra

Tech conducted sound measurements, noise modeling, and noise predictions for the area around the proposed Rosemont project site.

Ambient noise in the project area was monitored for 72 consecutive hours at five locations and for 48 consecutive hours at three locations.

Noise studies looked at the projected noise levels from the Rosemont project operations and their potential impact on surrounding roadways and urban areas .

Noise



Additional noise monitoring was conducted at an active copper mine in October 2008. The results indicated:

•Except in the immediate vicinity of the active pit or within 100 feet of active haul roads, noise levels measured at an active copper mine were similar to the ambient noise levels currently at the Rosemont Copper project area.

•During blasting operations at the active copper mine, the blast was not detectable with terrain shielding about one mile from the pit or at a location without terrain shielding about 1.1 miles from the pit.

Tetra Tech concluded that maximum construction noise levels and operational noise from the plant site and motorized equipment generally would not be audible beyond the boundaries of the proposed Rosemont project boundaries; and blast noise levels from the proposed project site would be comparable to, or less than, the maximum noise levels that currently occur several times per hour during daytime periods. The blast noise would likely be undetectable indoors.



Reclamation

TITLE: Final Open Pit Wall ColorationRELEASE DATE: January 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra Tech

TITLE: Reclamation Concept UpdateRELEASE DATE: March 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: During operations, the Rosemont Copper

project is committed to concurrent reclamation, which includes contouring and re-vegetation of the outer slopes of the facilities that make up the Rosemont Ridge Landform (waste rock from the Open Pit, and a closed Heap Leach Facility and a Dry Stack Tailings Facility both encapsulated with waste rock). At the end of the mine life, final reclamation of the site will include demolition and closure of the plant site facilities and final re-grading and re-vegetation of the Rosemont Ridge Landform, which will remain along with the Open Pit, access roads, and the graded plant site area. In summary, the Rosemont Ridge Landform was designed with the following features: areas of enhanced vegetation growth and wildlife habitat; areas of slope protection and visual mitigation; ranching areas within the Landform; and areas of small hills to mimic the natural environment.

TITLE: UA Final Report for Phase 1RELEASE DATE: July 2007PREPARED BY: Jeffreys S. Fehmi, University of Arizona,

School of Natural ResourcesBrief Summary: The Rosemont Copper reclamation effort

aims to prevent soil loss, reclaim the site’s capacity for productive use, and support a higher functioning plant community. The uplands around Rosemont are not currently at their highest potential as a plant community which was caused by a combination of fire suppression, grazing, and human habitation. A mix of seeds was proposed to reclaim the site to a condition representing the ideal plant community -- a total of 29 species of seeds were chosen. Three rainfall scenarios and two soil/surface options were studied. Other recommendations from the University of Arizona School of Natural

Reclamation

Reclamation studies support closure planning and provide a technical basis for reseeding the Rosemont project site from construction to the conclusion of operations .



Resources include initiating an invasive species survey and invasive species management plan on the mine site.

TITLE: U A Phase II Final ReportRELEASE DATE: December 2008PREPARED BY: Jeffrey S. Fehmi, Taryn M. Kong, and

Leslie Wood, University of Arizona School of Natural Resources

Brief Summary: In a greenhouse study of reclamation options, four seed mixes, three soil types, three rainfall scenarios, and three amendment treatments were tested. The University of Arizona’s School of Natural Resources found that the ideal combination for reclamation is to seed the selected species mix on Gila or Glance soils with average or high rainfall, and amend with tackified straw.

TITLE: U A Phase II Preliminary (in progress) Report V1RELEASE DATE: March 2008PREPARED BY: Jeffrey S. Fehmi, University of Arizona,

School of Natural ResourcesBrief Summary: This report was prepared by the University

of Arizona and contains preliminary results of Phase II of the mine reclamation test work. After the rainfall scenario was completed, the plants were harvested, separated by species, dried, weighed, and analyzed before the report was prepared.

Of the three soil types (Arkose, Gila, and Glance), Arkose had the lowest germination averaged across the rainfall scenarios but had the highest germination in the low rainfall-no amendment combination. Germination was lower with amendments than without while plant vigor appeared higher with amendments. A separate amendment trial appeared to give similar results.

TITLE: Waste Rock Storage Area Stability AnalysisRELEASE DATE: March 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra Tech

Arizona State Mine InspectorTITLE: Rosemont Ranch Reclamation Plan for a Proposed

Hard Rock Mine Site RELEASE DATE: May 2009PREPARED BY: Arizona State Mine InspectorBrief Summary: The letter from the Arizona State Mine

Inspector advises that the Rosemont project meets the requirements of the Mined Land Reclamation Act and Rules and the plan approval criteria established in A.R.S. Title 27, Chapter 5. During this process, any person who may be adversely affected by the plan may file written comments on the plan within fifteen days of publication or to request public meetings.

TITLE: Rosemont Copper Reclamation Plan Approval of a Proposed Hard Rock Mine Site

RELEASE DATE: July 2009PREPARED BY: Arizona State Mine InspectorBrief Summary: The letter from the Arizona State Mine

Inspector confirms that the Rosemont project meets the applicable requirements of the Mined Land Reclamation Act and Rules and the plan approval criteria established under A.R.S. Title 27, Chapter five. The plan approval establishes the due date for submittal of a financial assurance mechanism and the plan anniversary date.

TITLE: Update to the Arizona Mined Land Reclamation Plan Reclamation Test Plots

RELEASE DATE: July 2009PREPARED BY: Rosemont CopperBrief Summary: This Rosemont update reviews the

University of Arizona’s field testing of seed mixes and reclamation techniques on two test plots – the only large surface disturbance prior to construction.

Each test plot will disturb no more than five acres and each will be cleared and grubbed and topsoil removed as necessary. Once complete, plots will be divided into two, two-acre test plots. Each of the subdivisions will be divided further to test soil placement, seed introduction, and other seeding information.

Rosemont will provide financial assurance to cover the incremental surface disturbance for reclamation test work.

TITLE: Rosemont Exploration and Reclamation Summary RELEASE DATE: August 2010PREPARED BY: Rosemont CopperBrief Summary: This Rosemont summary of 2009

reclamation work due to drilling activities of 2008 and reclamation research for the Rosemont project include:

• One exploration drill rig completed 20 diamond drill holes; all of the drill pads were reclaimed. • Three reverse circulation drill rigs completed 30 hydrogeologic characterization wells; 29 of the drill pads were reclaimed. • Three different rigs completed 15 geotechnical holes; all of the drill pads were reclaimed.

During the summer and fall of 2009, reclamation test plots were constructed for a re-vegetation study conducted by the University of Arizona, which disturbed more than five acres and was reclaimed as identified in the Reclamation Plan.

Reclamation Concept Volumes for PostingTITLE: Appendices through Figure Set 3 from Reclamation

Concept Update RELEASE DATE: March 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra Tech

TITLE: Survey of Salvage Topsoil Resources for the Rosemont Mining Area – Revision 1

RELEASE DATE: November 2010


PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: Tetra Tech completed soil resource

assessments in 2007 and 2010 within the vicinity of the proposed Rosemont Copper project. The assessment areas included potential disturbance areas (including buffer areas) associated with the alternatives being considered in the Environmental Impact Statement and was conducted to support reclamation planning. Survey methods included: data review; field investigations; sample collection; laboratory analyses; soil map unit development; and soil suitability for reclamation. The need for topsoil salvage to the maximum depth of available material will depend on the requirements of the final reclamation plan. A comprehensive review indicated substantial reserves of unconsolidated and weathered bedrock. The southwestern portion of the survey area also contains deep deposits of remnant terrace materials and highly weathered Willow Creek Formation bedrock. Borings, test pits, or geophysical surveys have not been done in the northern portion of

the survey area to verify the potential presence of these deeper reclamation materials.



SocioeconomicTITLE: The Impact of the Rosemont Mine on the

Economies of Pima County, Arizona and the United States

RELEASE DATE: August 2007PREPARED BY: Western Economic Analysis Center (WEAC)Brief Summary: This report on the impact of the Rosemont

project on the economies of Pima County, Arizona, and the United States was prepared by the Western Economic Analysis Center in Marana, Arizona. Pima County’s economy would gain nearly $256 million each year, along with 2,200 new jobs. Arizona’s economy would increase by an average of $488 million annually and the nation’s economy would benefit by more than $2.3 billion each year.

Personal income in Pima County would increase by a total of nearly $72 million annually, with local governments receiving a combined $16 million each year. The State’s businesses would see an average of $312 million in sales, Arizona residents would receive almost $126 million of personal income, and state and local governments would receive an average of nearly $49 million each year. American business firms would benefit by more than $1.5 billion annually in sales, and State and local governments would benefit from nearly $132 million in additional revenues each year.

TITLE: An Assessment of the Economic Impacts of the Rosemont Copper Project on the Economies of the Cochise/Pima/Santa Cruz Counties Study Area, Arizona, and the United States

DATE: November 2009PREPARED BY: L. William Seidman Research Institute,

W.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State UniversityBrief Summary: The L. William Seidman Research Institute

in the W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University used the REMI PI+ regional economic forecasting model to estimate the economic impact of the Rosemont project for the Cochise/Pima/Santa Cruz counties study area, the State of Arizona, and the United States. This model has been developed and tested over three decades and is widely used by most states and many private firms for regional forecasting.

The mine’s processing facilities will cost $897 million to develop and construct. When in operation, employment would average 406 per year, and total annual production costs would average $301 million per year during the 20-year production period.

In Cochise, Pima, and Santa Cruz counties, the construction and production/post-production phases would generate $797 million in economic activity each

year, $181 million in additional income, $5 million per year in revenues for local governments, and support 5,700 jobs.

For the two phases, the impacts would total $25.3 billion in additional demand for goods and services from suppliers, $8.2 billion in gross regional product, $3.1 billion in personal income, and $422 million in local government revenues.

The Rosemont project creates permanent economic growth in the region. Forecast results indicate that the level of economic activity would be $52 million per year higher, residents’ income $68 million per year higher, employment increases by more than 300 jobs, and local government revenues increase by $2 million per year more than if the project never existed.

In Arizona, the construction and production/post-production phases would generate $219 billion each year in economic activity, $263 million per year in additional income to residents, $38 million per year in revenues for the state government, and support 6,800 jobs.

For the two phases, the impacts would total $489 million in additional demand for goods and services from Arizona suppliers, $317 million in gross regional products, $182 million in personal income, and $23 million in state government revenues. Economic activity would be $111 million per year higher, state residents income $96 million per year higher, employment by 500 jobs higher and state government revenues $4 million per year higher than if Rosemont never existed.

Nationwide, the construction and production/post-production phases would generate $1.8 billion in economic activity per year, $554 million in additional income for U.S. residents, $181 million per year in additional revenues for the federal government and support 16,100 jobs for U.S. workers.

For the two phases, the impacts would total $29.3 billion in additional demand for goods and services, $15.1 billion in gross domestic product, $8.6 billion in personal income, and $3.2 billion in federal government revenues.

Socioeconomic studies looked

at the Rosemont project’s local, regional and national economic impact .


Surface Water & Riparian

TITLE: Baseline Regulatory (100-Year) Hydrology and Average-Annual Runoff

RELEASE DATE: March 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: Under baseline conditions, stormwater

runoff from the Rosemont drainage area flows down four main pathways – McCleary Canyon, Wasp Canyon, and Barrel Canyon and Lower Barrel Canyon – to the general outlet point (Compliance Point) for the watershed to the northeast of the project site. In this report, Tetra Tech provides details on the flow generated in those drainages.

Both the peak flow from the 100-year storm event and average runoff conditions at the Rosemont site were calculated. Tetra Tech’s baseline average-annual runoff analysis for watersheds within the project site indicate annual precipitation of approximately 18 inches with the following average annual runoff (provided in acre-feet): McCleary Canyon-322, Wasp Canyon-310, Barrel Canyon-354, Lower Barrel Canyon-142, and Compliance Point-912.

TITLE: Davidson Canyon Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model and Assessment of Spring Impacts

RELEASE DATE: April 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: The Rosemont project site comprises

approximately 16 percent of the entire Davidson Canyon watershed; therefore, the project has the potential to impact water resources in that drainage, according to this Tetra Tech report. However, the anticipated downstream effects of pit dewatering and the post-mining pit lake may be indiscernible from the existing natural and man-induced regional conditions.

During operations, dewatering (taking water out of the pit) will create drawdown in the groundwater table in an area immediately surrounding the pit. The water will follow the path of least resistance or in this case, the most permeable or most fractured rocks. The drawdown will be greatest around the pit and will diminish farther away from the pit, such as in Davidson Canyon, a

Surface Water & Riparian

Surface water and riparian studies looked at vegetative cover and riparian mapping to establish baselines and compare potential impacts from Rosemont project operations .



distance of nine to 14 miles. Stormwater flow will likely be reduced downstream.

However, flow-through drains and diversion channels will be constructed to help pass stormwater downstream of the facilities. Most of the stormwater entering the drains will likely infiltrate and ultimately recharge, as opposed to passing through as downstream surface flows. Flow modeling suggests that groundwater levels could eventually be one to 10 feet lower in parts of Davidson Canyon, but natural fluctuations in groundwater levels in that complex system already range from four to 25 feet, thus any declines are likely to be indiscernible from current conditions.

Impacts on water resources in Davidson Canyon and the larger Cienega Creek basin should be considered in the context of long-term pit inflows. It is estimated that inflows will be more than 300 gallons per minute (gpm) at the end of mining and decrease to about 120 gpm after 100 years.

Current water users are tapping the regional groundwater system in the Davidson Canyon watershed to supply water to homes, ranches and small businesses. The state groundwater well registry database (ADWR) indicates that there are more than 300 wells (monitoring wells excluded) within the Davidson Canyon watershed. The actual pumping rates for these wells are not reported.

Most springs appear to be fed by shallow water sources that are strongly influenced by seasonal precipitation variations and not connected to groundwater systems.

TITLE: Davidson Canyon Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model and Assessment of Spring Impacts (Updated Report)

RELEASE DATE: July 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: The Rosemont project site comprises

approximately 16 percent of the entire Davidson Canyon watershed, therefore the project has the potential to impact water resources in that drainage. The anticipated downstream effects of pit dewatering and the post-mining pit lake may be indiscernible from the existing natural and man-induced regional conditions.

At-a-glance:•The Tetra Tech report provides detailed data on surface

water hydrology, channel morphology, geology, geologic controls on streamflow, groundwater hydrology and the regional bedrock flow system. The discussion of groundwater-surface water interactions documents possible impacts on the Davidson Canyon watershed, with particular attention to the areas like

Lower Davidson that are farthest from the proposed Rosemont project.

• Impacts on riparian trees and other vegetation are likely to be minimal considering their distance from the project site and the long periods over which the potential impacts would materialize (hundreds of years). It is possible that those impacts will fall within the range of natural fluctuations and thus will be within the range of tolerated conditions.

•The Rosemont Waste Rock Storage Area, Heap Leach Facility, and the Dry Stack Tailings Facility will have little or no impact on the quality of water within the regional groundwater system.

TITLE: Dry Stack Tailings Storage Facility Stormwater Management Design Report

RELEASE DATE: April 2009; updated in 2010PREPARED BY: AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc.Brief Summary: AMEC Earth & Environment, Inc.

describes the stormwater management design process for the Dry Stack Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) in McCleary Canyon and in the Lower Barrel Canyon drainage areas east of the plant site. The first phase of the TSF will have a capacity of 343 million tons and will operate for 12 years. The second phase will extend into McCleary Canyon with a capacity of 253 million tons and will operate for slightly less than nine years.

In addition, AMEC defined stormwater parameters, operations requirements, reclamation suggestions, and outlined a closure/post-closure plan aimed at eliminating any reasonable probability of discharge. No impact on aquifer water quality is anticipated during the operational, closure, and post-closure periods of the facility. Therefore, the focus of the closure/post-closure strategy is to minimize erosion and promote landform stability.

TITLE: Flow Through Drain (Sizing) RELEASE DATE: April 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra Tech

TITLE: Flow Through Drain DesignRELEASE DATE: April 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra Tech

TITLE: Flow Through Drain Design Summary RELEASE DATE: August 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra Tech

TITLE: Hydrology Method JustificationRELEASE DATE: January 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra Tech

TITLE: Infiltration AnalysisRELEASE DATE: April 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra Tech

TITLE: Onsite Riparian Habitat Assessment and Impact Analysis

RELEASE DATE: April 2010PREPARED BY: WestLand Resources, Inc.Brief Summary: WestLand Resources was asked to

describe and map riparian habitat within portions of the Rosemont claim holdings located in the Santa Rita Mountains. The study area consists of approximately 10,493 acres and encompassed all of the project alternatives being considered by the Forest Service for the site at the time of the study. Of this total, riparian habitat makes up 316.7 acres, or three percent of the study area. This work supports the development and comparison of alternatives that seek to reduce the impacts of the project on riparian habitat.

The study area contains two vegetative cover types – Madrean evergreen woodlands in the high elevations, and semi-desert grassland in the lower elevations. Historical information suggests that the vegetation communities within the area have changed significantly since the arrival of Euro-Americans and the introduction of mining and grazing, including an increase in woody species and a reduced density of grasses.

In addition to riparian mapping and vegetative cover analysis, Westland Resources inspected Rosemont holdings for waters of the area including wetlands, springs, seeps and other water resources such as stock tanks.

TITLE: Pit Diversion Channel DesignRELEASE DATE: April 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: The Rosemont pit diversion channel and

related structures are designed to carry stormwater runoff caused by a probable maximum precipitation (PMP) storm event. At peak flow, the channel will safely divert the water from west and south of the pit at peak flow into the upper portion of Barrel Canyon.

The channel will be a permanent structure located to the west of the open pit, and will be constructed early in the life of the Rosemont project. Over time, the



Waste Rock Storage Area will confine the flows within perimeter containment basins. These basins are located between the toe of the Waste Rock Storage Area and a natural ridgeline.

The Tetra Tech report estimates precipitation during the PMP storm event and provides details on hydrologic soil groups and their infiltration rates in a storm and the flow rates through the channel at various points.

TITLE: Post-Mining Regulatory (100-Year) Hydrology and Average Annual Runoff

RELEASE DATE: March 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra Tech

TITLE: Rainfall Run Off Volumes – Rosemont Heap Leach Facility

RELEASE DATE: April 2009PREPARED BY: Tetra Tech

TITLE: Design Storm and Precipitation Data/Design Criteria


TITLE: Modified Infiltration RateRELEASE DATE: May 2009PREPARED BY: Tetra Tech

TITLE: Sediment DeliveryRELEASE DATE: April 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra Tech

TITLE: Baseline and Post-Mining Conditions – Sediment Delivery Alternatives


TITLE: Site Water Management Update Volumes 1 - 5RELEASE DATE: April 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra Tech

TITLE: Site Soil Erosion EstimatesRELEASE DATE: March 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra Tech

TITLE: Surface Water Quality Baseline AnalysisRELEASE DATE: April 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra Tech

TITLE: Waste Rock Storage Area Stormwater ManagementRELEASE DATE: April 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra Tech



Tailings

TITLE: Rosemont Copper Company Filtered Tailings Dry Stacks Current State of Practice Final Report

RELEASE DATE: November 2008PREPARED BY: AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc.Brief Summary: Unlike conventional tailings impound-

ments, filtered tailings are unsaturated, dense and stored in a facility known as a “dry stack.” Filtered tailings have a smaller footprint, are easier to reclaim, and minimize any environmental impacts by effi-ciently recycling process water. With Arizona’s arid environment and the state’s critical need to conserve water, filtered tailings is a viable option for the Rose-mont project, according to the AMEC Earth & Envi-ronment, Inc. report.

The tailings study compared tailings alternatives to determine which is a viable option for the Rosemont project .

Tailings



Traffic

ReportTITLE: AZ 83 Roadway Assessment RELEASE DATE: July 2009PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: Arizona State Route 83 (SR-83) will

be a main transport corridor for the Rosemont Copper project, thus the current roadway geometry and safety conditions along SR-83 between Interstate 10 (I-10) and State Route 82 (SR-82) were analyzed. Final report results summarize four key areas: 1) an introduction and site description; 2) a SR-83 roadway assessment, 3) a comprehensive accident analysis of SR-83 and an accident database of State Route 77, and 4) potential roadway improvements to AZ-83.

TITLE: Traffic Analysis Report – Rosemont Copper Project

RELEASE DATE: April 2009PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: Tetra Tech completed a traffic analysis

to examine the existing traffic conditions along State Route 83 (SR-83), which will serve as the project’s major access route, and to assess potential future traffic associated with the operations and the surrounding area. The study found that existing and forecasted conditions have Level of Service values at or above acceptable levels for up to approximately 20 years. Two potential mitigation methods were discussed to alleviate traffic: 1) carpool management and staged truck deliveries, and 2) modifications to SR-83.

Technical MemorandaTITLE: Rosemont “T” Intersection Analysis –

Acceleration Lane RELEASE DATE: June 2009PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: This technical memorandum prepared

by Tetra Tech presents advantages and disadvantages of one of four design alternatives for the proposed

Traffic studies looked at existing traffic conditions in and around the Rosemont project and proposed alternatives .

Traffic



Primary Access Road “T” intersection that is associated with the Rosemont Copper project. The design alternatives included: 1) a three-way stop sign, 2) a speed limit reduction, 3) an acceleration lane with both 55 and 35 mph speed limits, and 4) a bypass lane. The acceleration lane with both 55 and 35 mph speed limits is the focus of this analysis. For both speed options, recommendations were made for the construction of an additional northbound lane and overall widening of the “T” intersection; appropriate signage and their breakaway capabilities; and roadside clearing of trees.

TITLE: Rosemont “T” Intersection Analysis – Bypass LaneRELEASE DATE: June 2009PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: This technical memorandum prepared

by Tetra Tech presents one of four design alternatives for the proposed Primary Access Road “T” intersection that is associated with the Rosemont Copper project. The design alternatives include: 1) a three-way stop sign; 2) a speed limit reduction; 3) an acceleration lane with both 55 and 35 mph speed limits; and 4) a bypass lane. A bypass lane alternative to the Mine Plan of Operations design is the focus of this analysis. In addition to adding a northbound dedicated acceleration lane along SR-83, the design would also include a two-foot buffer between the acceleration lane and the through traffic lane. The intersection would be widened to keep traffic from crossing over into the acceleration lane, creating a clean and efficient traffic separation.

TITLE: Rosemont Traffic Study – Additional ScenariosRELEASE DATE: February 2010PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: Three additional scenarios were analyzed

by Tetra Teach as a supplement to the Rosemont Traffic Study of April 2009 and their impact on SR-83 for Operations Year 5 and Operations Year 20: No carpool; 50 percent carpool; and 50 percent carpool with no Copper Concentrate Truck traffic. Level of Service (LOS) analysis of intersections and roadway segments followed the same methodologies presented in the April 2009 study. LOS analysis of intersections showed acceptable LOS for all scenarios under all analysis years.

TITLE: State Route (SR) 83 Scenic Road Evaluation for Rosemont

RELEASE DATE: May 2009PREPARED BY: Tetra Tech

Brief Summary: The Patagonia-Sonoita Road, which extends along State Route 83 (SR-83) and State Route 82 (SR-82), is designated as a scenic road. Local community members are considering the possibility of applying for a national designation. Based on the requirements for the state Scenic Road designation, the roadway was evaluated for possible effects of the Rosemont Copper project on this designation. In a technical memorandum, Tetra Tech concluded that the development of the Rosemont Copper project should not affect the current designation.

TITLE: State Route (SR) 83 School Bus Stop Improvements

RELEASE DATE: June 2009PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: A total of seven school bus stops

were identified along State Route 83 (SR-83), which is the primary access and transportation route for the proposed Rosemont Copper project. In this technical memorandum, Tetra Tech proposed turnouts that met all three national requirements, conforming to the Arizona Department of Transportation Roadway Design Guidelines section on pullouts (Section 105-4). Advantages and disadvantages of each were evaluated.

TITLE: State Route (SR) 83 School Bus Turnout Improvements

RELEASE DATE: June 2009PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: In a Tetra Tech technical memorandum,

potential improvements to the current school bus turnouts along State Route 83 were assessed and recommendations were made. The Vail School District is open to improvements and recommendations.

TITLE: Rosemont “T” Intersection Analysis – Stop Sign and Speed Reduction

RELEASE DATE: June 2009PREPARED BY: Tetra TechBrief Summary: Tetra Tech conducted an analysis to

assess potential traffic flow issues and to recommend designs that would allow traffic to safely merge from the Primary Access Road onto SR-83. The alternatives analyzed in this report were to add a three-way stop or have a speed limit reduction.

TITLE: Wide Load Truck Turnouts for State Route (SR) 83RELEASE DATE: June 2009PREPARED BY: Tetra Tech

Brief Summary: In a technical memorandum, Tetra Tech presented two potential locations for wide load truck turnouts along State Route 83 (SR-83) — one at milepost 55.4 near Sahuarita Road and another at milepost 47.2, just north of the proposed Primary Access Road. Recommendations focused on turnout width and length, clearing that conforms to established guidelines, and the need for appropriate signage.


United States Army Corps of Engineers

TITLE: Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for the Rosemont Project, Pima County, Arizona

RELEASE DATE: July 2009 PREPARED BY: WestLand Resources, Inc.Brief Summary: WestLand studied about 9,136 acres,

mainly in the Barrel Canyon drainage basin, to identify potential jurisdictional waters for the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). It found 154 impermanent or seasonal drainage features to be potential waters, including the sub-watersheds of Scholefield Canyon, McCleary Canyon, and Wasp Canyon. An estimated 101.6 acres of potential jurisdictional waters were identified.

Of 22 specific features identified for wetland analysis in the Rosemont project analysis area, only one, Scholefield Spring, was found to be a potentially jurisdictional wetland according to USACE criteria.

These lands are partly managed by the Coronado National Forest, or fee land and patented claims held by Rosemont. Mining began in the Rosemont area in the 1870s and was mostly completed by 1920; ranching began around 1900 and has since declined, although grazing continues.

This delineation of potentially jurisdictional waters has been accepted by the USACE and Rosemont Copper Company for the purposes of permitting under section 404 of the Clean Water Act.


United States Army Corps of Engineers

Approximately 9,000 acres of the land that will be used for theRosemont Copper project were evaluated, as well as the surrounding area .


14 Oversized JD Figures

TITLE: Overview for Analysis AreaRELEASE DATE: May 2009

TITLE: SHT-2-W through SHT 14-wRELEASE DATE: May 2009

TITLE: Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination: Rosemont Project, Sycamore Canyon Supplement, Pima County, Arizona

RELEASE DATE: January 2010PREPARED BY: WestLand Resources, Inc.Brief Summary: WestLand studied about 3,536 acres

in the Sycamore Canyon drainage basin, to identify potential jurisdictional waters for the USACE. It found 13 impermanent or seasonal drainage features to be potential waters. An estimated 11.2 acres of potential jurisdictional waters were identified.

Of four specific features identified for wetland analysis in the Sycamore Canyon analysis area, only one, Fig Tree Spring, was found to be a potentially jurisdictional wetland according to USACE criteria.

These lands are a combination of fee lands or patented claims held by Rosemont and lands managed by the Coronado National Forest.

This delineation of potentially jurisdictional waters has been accepted by the USACE and Rosemont Copper Company for the purposes of permitting under section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

TITLE: Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination: Santa Rita Road Waterline for the Rosemont Project, Pima County, Arizona

RELEASE DATE: March 2010PREPARED BY: WestLand Resources, Inc.Brief Summary: WestLand studied about 22.4 linear miles

of variable width, totaling approximately 1,158 acres, in the Santa Cruz River watershed between the Santa Rita Mountains and the Santa Cruz River, to identify potential jurisdictional waters for the USACE. It found 95 impermanent or seasonal drainage features to be potential waters. An estimated 21.6 acres of potential jurisdictional waters were identified. No features were identified for wetland analysis.

The analysis area included a combination of lands held by the Arizona State Land Department, Coronado National Forest, Bureau of Land Management and private landowners.

This delineation of potentially jurisdictional waters has

been accepted by the USACE and Rosemont Copper Company for the purposes of permitting under section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

TITLE: 6 oversized JD FiguresRELEASE DATE: March 2010


2006July Preliminary Trip Report and Phase 1 Sampling & Analysis Plan

2007June Baseline Geochemical CharacterizationJune Geologic Hazards AssessmentJune Geotechnical Study ReportJuly UA Final Report for Phase 1July UA Final Report for Phase 1

August The Impact of the Rosemont Mine on the Economies of Pima County, Arizona and the United States

November Geochemistry Characterization Addendum 1November Dewatering for the Planned Rosemont Mine

2008March UA Phase II Preliminary (in progress) Report V1

October Tailings GeochemistryOctober Background Ambient Noise Study

November Rosemont Copper Company Filtered Tailings Dry Stacks Current State of Practice Final Report

December UA Phase II Project Report FinalDecember Updates to ADWR Model in Sahuarita/Green Valley AreaDecember U A Phase II Final Report

2009February Rosemont Copper APP Application Volume 2

February Rosemont Copper APP Application Volume 3

February Rosemont Copper APP Application Volume 4a

February Rosemont Copper APP Application Volume 4b

February Rosemont Copper APP Application Volume 4c

February Results of Phase 2 Hydrogeologic Investigations and Monitoring Program



March Tailings Geochemistry

March Agave Survey of the Rosemont Holdings and Vicinity

March Lesser Long-Nosed Bat Survey of the Rosemont Holdings and Vicinity

March Pima Pineapple Cactus Survey of the Proposed Rosemont Project Waterline Alignment

March Tailings Geochemistry

April Summary of Ambient Air Quality and Meteorological Data Collected from Startup through March 2009 v1




April Rosemont Copper Co. NADS 1 090408

Timeline


April 2008 Ranid Survey of The Rosemont Holdings and Vicinity

April ADWR Tech Memo April Update

April Results of Construction, Development and Testing for Production Water Well (D-17-14) 21 add [RC-2]

April Groundwater Flow Modeling Conducted for Simulation of Rosemont Copper’s Proposed Mine Supply Pumping, Sahuarita, Arizona

April Supplemental Noise Study

April Dry Stack Tailings Storage Facility Stormwater Management Design Report (Updated in 2010)

April Rainfall Run Off Volumes – Rosemont Heap Leach Facility

April Design Storm and Precipitation Data/Design Criteria

April Traffic Analysis Report – Rosemont Copper Project

May Response to Notice of Administrative Deficiencies Letter (Transmittal of documents requested in letter April 4, 2009)

May Evaluation of Rosemont Geochemical Testing Results and Local Water Quality

May Analysis of Long-Term, Multi-Well Aquifer Test

May Rosemont Multi Well Test Vol 2

May Rosemont Multi Well Test Vol 3a

May Rosemont Multi Well Test Vol 3b

May Rosemont Multi Well Test Vol 3c

May Rosemont Multi Well Test Vol 3d

May Rosemont Multi Well Test Vol 3e

May Rosemont Multi Well Test Vol 3f

May Rosemont Multi Well Test Vol 3g

May Rosemont Multi Well Test Vol 3h

May Rosemont Multi Well Test Vol 3i

May Rosemont Multi Well Test Vol 4

May Analysis of Long-Term, Multi-Well Aquifer Test, November 2008 through January 2009

May Rosemont Mine Outdoor Lighting & Pima County Outdoor Lighting Code

May Rosemont Ranch Reclamation Plan for a Proposed Hard Rock Mine Site

May Modified Infiltration Rate

May State Route (SR) 83 Scenic Road Evaluation for Rosemont

May Overview for Analysis Area

May Oversized JD Figures SHT2W - SHT14W

June Rosemont “T” Intersection Analysis – Acceleration Lane

June Rosemont “T” Intersection Analysis – Bypass LaneJune State Route (SR) 83 School Bus Stop Improvements June State Route (SR) 83 School Bus Turnout ImprovementsJune Rosemont “T” Intersection Analysis – Stop Sign and Speed Reduction June Wide Load Truck Turnouts for State Route (SR) 83

July Rosemont Copper Reclamation Plan Approval of a Proposed Hard Rock Mine Site

July Update to the Arizona Mined Land Reclamation Plan Reclamation Test Plots

July AZ 83 Roadway Assessment

July Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for the Rosemont Project, Pima County, Arizona

July Rosemont Mine Water Delivery System Preliminary Design ReportAugust Rosemont Plant Site Geotechnical ReportOctober Initial Hydrology for Rosemont Copper Operations

October Bolsa Quartzite – Acid-Base Accounting Properties and Humidity Cell Testing Results

October Groundwater Flow Modeling Conducted for Simulation of Proposed Rosemont Pit Dewatering and Post-Closure

November Geochemical Sample Composite MethodNovember Rosemont Geochemical Sample Composite MethodNovember Geochemistry Sample Update

NovemberAn Assessment of the Economic Impacts of the Rosemont Copper Project on the Economies of the Cochise/Pima/Santa Cruz Counties Study Area, Arizona, and the United States

December Rosemont Holdings 2009 Bat Roost Survey

December Pima Pineapple Cactus Survey: Proposed Rosemont Project Santa Rita Road Waterline

December 2009 Ranid Survey of the Rosemont Holdings and Vicinity

2010January Incomplete Response to Substantive Deficiencies, Inventory #106100

January Rosemont Well Inventory Update

January Site Surface Soils Geochemistry

January Site Surface Soils Geochemistry

January Waste Rock Material Characterization


2010 continuedJanuary Rosemont Well Inventory Update

January Final Open Pit Wall Coloration

January Hydrology Method Justification

January Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination: Rosemont Project, Sycamore Canyon Supplement, Pima County, Arizona

January 6 oversized JD Figures

February Infiltration, Seepage, Fate and Transport Modeling Report

February RCC Geochemical Pit Lake Predictive Model

February Infiltration, Seepage, Fate and Transport Modeling Report

February Rosemont Traffic Study – Additional Scenarios

March Comparison of Natural Fluctuation in Groundwater Level to Provisional Drawdown Projects, Rosemont Mine

March Reclamation Concept Update

March Waste Rock Storage Area Stability Analysis

March Appendices from Reclamation Concept Update

March Figure Set 1 from Reclamation Concept Update



March Baseline Regulatory (100-Year) Hydrology and Average-Annual Runoff

March Post-Mining Regulatory (100-Year) Hydrology and Average Annual Runoff

March Site Soil Erosion Estimates

March Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination: Santa Rita Road Waterline for the Rosemont Project, Pima County, Arizona

March 6 oversized JD Figures

April Rosemont Copper Co. RAIS 041410

April Site Water Management Update, Volume 1 of 5





April Attachment 7: Technical Review of Tetra Tech’s Feb. 2010 Infiltration, Seepage, and Fate and Transport Modeling Report

April Talus Snails (Sonorella, Helminthoglyptidae) and Talus Slopes of the North Ridge of the Santa Rita Mountains, Pima County, Arizona

April Rosemont Infiltration Analysis

April Davidson Canyon Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model and Assessment of Spring Impacts

April Flow Through Drain (Sizing)

April Flow Through Drain Design

April Infiltration Analysis

April Onsite Riparian Habitat Assessment and Impact Analysis

April Pit Diversion Channel Design

April Sediment Delivery

April Baseline and Post-Mining Conditions – Sediment Delivery Alternatives

April Site Water Management Update Volume 1 of 5





April Surface Water Quality Baseline Analysis

April Waste Rock Storage Area Stormwater Management

July Modeling Report to Assess Ambient Air Quality Impacts

July CALPUFF Modeling Report to Assess Impacts in Class I Areas

July Executive Summary Air Quality Information Rosemont Copper Project Southern Arizona

July Application for a class II Permit Rosemont Copper Project Southeastern Arizona

July Emission Inventory Years 1,5,10,15 and 20 Rosemont Copper Project Southeastern Arizona

July Comprehensive Request for Additional Information (Response to ADEQ)

July POC Well Diagram RPI-WS

July Revisions to Figure 23 of APP Application

July Water Level Hydrographs 2001-2010

July Groundwater Level Contours and Depth to Water 2010

July Summary of Groundwater Level Measurements for Wells, Piezometers and Drill Holes

July Surface Water Sample Sites, Cienaga Creek and Davidson Canyon

July Field Surveys For Hexalectris Colemanii In Southeastern Arizona

JulyRestoring Agave Palmeri Populations: Critical Factors for Seeding and Transplanting in Disturbed Landscapes (A Thesis for the School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Arizona)

July Groundwater Flow Model Construction and Calibration


July Hydraulic Property EstimatesJuly Predictive Groundwater Flow Modeling ResultsJuly Hydrogeologic Framework ModelJuly Steady-State Sensitivity AnalysesJuly Groundwater Flow Model Sensitivity Analysis

July Davidson Canyon Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model and Assessment of Spring Impacts (Updated Report)

August Air Quality Activity Permit: Fugitive Dust 6488August Air Quality Activity Permit: Fugitive Dust 6489

August Attachment 1: Groundwater Flow Modeling Conducted for Simulation of Proposed Rosemont Pit Dewatering and Post-Closure Revised Report

August Attachment 2: Rosemont Groundwater Flow Model Summary

August Attachment 3: SRK Consulting Technical Review of Montgomery’s 2009 Groundwater Flow Model

August Attachment 4: Rosemont Geochemical Pit Lake Predictive Model Summary

August Attachment 5: Rosemont Area-Wide Fate and Transport and DIA Summary

August Attachment 6: Rosemont Infiltration, Seepage, Fate and Transport Modeling Report Update

August Attachment 7: (see April 2010)

August Attachment 8: Physical and Mechanical Properties of Tailing and Waste Rockfill Materials

August Attachment 9: Rosemont Tailing Geochemistry Sample SourcesAugust Attachment 10: Rosemont Heap Leach Design ResponsesAugust Attachment 11: Rosemont Flow-Through Drain Design SummaryAugust Attachment 12: PWTS Pond and Settling Basin Design RevisionsAugust Attachment 13: Rosemont BADCT Analysis for the PWTS PondAugust Attachment 14: Rosemont Settling Basin BADCT AnalysisAugust Attachment 15: Rosemont Waste Rock Segregation Plan August Attachment 16: Rosemont APP-Regulated Facility LocationsAugust Attachment 17: Rosemont APP-Regulated Facility Depth to GroundwaterAugust Attachment 18: Non-Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Application RevisedAugust Comprehensive Request for Additional Information

August Pima Pineapple Cactus Survey for the Rosemont Mine Southern Utility Line Alternative, East of Sahuarita, Pima County, Arizona

August Rosemont Geochemical Pit Lake Predictive Model SummaryAugust Rosemont Tailings Geochemistry Sample Sources Update

August Rosemont Area-Wide Fate and Transport and DIA SummaryAugust Infiltration, Seepage, Fate and Transport Modeling Report, Revision 1 August Rosemont APP-Regulated Facility Depth to Groundwater

August Groundwater Flow Modeling Conducted for Simulation of Proposed Rosemont Pit Dewatering and Post-Closure, Vol. 1

August Rosemont Exploration and Reclamation Summary August Flow Through Drain Design Summary August Non-Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Application

September Air Quality Permit Application received July 20, 1020 (Permit #6112) Letter

September Rosemont Copper Company Application for Class II Permit LetterSeptember Air Quality Permit Processing in Pima County, Arizona White Paper

October Air Quality Permit Application, Permit #6112October Ferris Missing Stations 48-52October 1978 Invertebrates (Other Than Insects) of the Rosemont AreaOctober Pilsbry and Ferris 1923 pg 51October Pilsbry and Ferris 1923 pgs 68 and 69

October Addendum to Groundwater Flow Modeling Conducted for Simulation of Rosemont Copper’s Proposed Mine Supply Pumping Sahuarita, Arizona

November Response to Incomplete Permit Application received October 12, 2010 (Permit #6112) Letter

November Geochemical Pit Lake Predictive Model Revision 1

November Rosemont Infiltration, Seepage, Fate and Transport Response to Comments

November Responses to SRK’s Technical Review Comments on Tetra Tech’s Groundwater Flow Model Technical Memoranda

November Regional Groundwater Flow Model

November Survey of Salvage Topsoil Resources for the Rosemont Mining Area – Revision 1

December Incomplete Response to Substantive Deficiencies

2011January Comments on the Coronado National Forest Determination of Effect of the

Rosemont Project on Jaguar and Ocelot


Studies after January 2011 are available online at www .rosemontcopper .com

46 rosemont copper - a bridge to a sustainable future46 rosemont copper - a bridge to a sustainable future