Preliminary EA Scoping Comment and Response...

Resolution Copper Mining Baseline Hydrological and Geotechnical Data Gathering Activities

Preliminary EA Scoping Comment and Response Report

Tonto National Forest Globe and Mesa Ranger Districts Pinal County

March 2015

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southwestern Region

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color,

national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all

prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence

Avenue, SW, Mail Stop 0115, Washington, DC 20250 or call (202) 720-3808 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity

provider and employer.

Printed on recycled paper.

Digital copies are available for download from the Tonto National Forest website.

If printing a copy, please consider the environment and use recycled paper.

Resolution Baseline Hydrological and Geotechnical Data Gathering Activities Preliminary EA Scoping Comment and Response Report

1

INTRODUCTION

Public scoping for the project started with the publication of the Legal Notice in the Arizona Silver Belt

on May 21, 2014 and the Arizona Capitol Times, the newspaper of record on May 23, 2014. The notice

informed the public of Resolution’s Baseline Plan and requested public comments from May 24 to

June 23, 2014. The scoping letter with attachments was mailed to approximately 358 people, including

representatives from approximately 38 Tribal and governmental agencies. Written comments were

submitted via U.S. mail, e-mail, fax, and during the public open house held on June 10, 2014 at the

Superior Junior/Senior High School where a court reporter was available to receive verbal comments. In

total, 226 submissions were received of which 73 were unique, 152 were form letters (some with unique

comments), and 1 was a petition from Queen Valley residents.

This report is organized into three tables. Table 1 is an index that lists, in alphabetical order by last name

or organization name, all commenters, the organizations they represent, letter number, and corresponding

page in the report for the response. Table 2 contains all public scoping comments received during the

scoping period and the Forest’s responses. Table 3 contains all public comments received outside the

scoping period and the Forest’s responses. Some comment letters did not include comments, or indicated

they have no comment at this time, and are identified in the report as “No comments”. All comments

received were reviewed and evaluated for issues, which resulted in modifications to the Proposed Action

and/or development of alternatives.

The proposed Plan is subject to the Project-Level Pre-decisional Administrative Review Process under

36 CFR Part 218, Subparts A and B. Those entities who provided specific written comments during

scoping, or who provide specific comments during any other instance where the responsible official is

seeking written comments, such as the comment period on the preliminary EA, may file an objection.

Consistent with 36 CFR Part 218.2, specific written comments should be within the scope of the proposed

action, have a direct relationship to the proposed action, and must include supporting reasons for the

responsible official to consider. Submission of timely, specific written comments is a prerequisite for

eligibility to file an objection under 36 CFR Part 218.

The Preliminary Environmental Assessment (EA) and this Preliminary EA Scoping Comment and

Response Report are available on the project website (http://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/forest-

level.php?110312).


Table 1-1

Table 1: Alphabetical List of Commenters, Organizations They Represent, Letter

Numbers, and Starting Page

Name/Organization Letter Number Starting Page

Adams, Micah Letter 235 3-4

Albright, Dale Letter 235 3-4

Algen, Dale Letter 235 3-4

Alger, Sherry Letter 235 3-4

Amendt, Herb Letter 235 3-4

Anderson, Donna Letter 235 3-4

Anderson, Wayne Letter 235 3-4

Andresen, Lori Letter 37 2-17

Arandelovic, Janice Letter 101 2-22

Armstrong, Cheryl Letter 235 3-4

Armstrong, Gary Letter 235 3-4

Arneson, Carla Letter 112 2-23

Arnst, Diane Letter 157 2-97

Arvago, Raymond Letter 235 3-4

Avanti, Annemarie Letter 80 2-20

Averett, Terry Letter 235 3-4

Bach, Mel Letter 235 3-4

Bach, Pat Letter 235 3-4

Bainbridge, Dennis Letter 235 3-4

Balderas, Ruben Letter 156, 187 2-97, 3-2

Baqinski, Jenny Letter 235 3-4

Barchas, Sarah Letter 166 3-1

Barin, Jr., Eugene Letter 235 3-4

Barrett, Sylvia Letter 135 2-28

Barstap, Vernon D. Letter 235 3-4

Bastek, Christopher Letter 103 2-22

Bealler, Betty Letter 235 3-4

Bealler, Steve Letter 235 3-4

Becker, Mike Letter 235 3-4

Begalke, Donald Letter 151, 206 2-45, 2-146

Beltrane, Edward Letter 208 2-146

Benallie, Jr., Larry Letter 18 2-9

Benedetto, Walter Letter 235 3-4

Bensten, Russ Letter 235 3-4

Bethka, Lorraine Letter 217 2-146

Betty, Jacobson Letter 235 3-4

Bever, Victoria Letter 19 2-10

Bfowl, Phil Letter 235 3-4


Table 1-2


Bickel, Bettina Letter 49 2-18

Binder, Fred Letter 66 2-19

Bingham, Brent Letter 86 2-21

Bittick, Cynthia Letter 79 2-20

Blake, Bonnie Letter 235 3-4

Blake, R Gene Letter 235 3-4

Blakeman, C.A. Letter 235 3-4

Blakeman, David Letter 235 3-4

Blakeram, Charles A Letter 235 3-4

Blei, Scott Letter 235 3-4

Bogard, James Letter 235 3-4

Bogard, Robert Letter 235 3-4

Bouneson, Robert Letter 235 3-4

Bourke, Jessie Letter 162 2-105

Brooks, Michael Letter 235 3-4

Brown, Mike Letter 235 3-4

Brown, Phil Letter 235 3-4

Bryant, Leslie Letter 130 2-25

Budenholzer, Alfred V Letter 235 3-4

Byrum, Dale Letter 235 3-4

Cah, Rall Letter 235 3-4

Cairnes, George Letter 235 3-4

Campbell, Matthew Letter 235 3-4

Campbell, Ryan Letter 235 3-4

Campos, Javier Letter 143 2-34

Capps, Jimmy Letter 235 3-4

Carpenter, Eric Letter 235 3-4

Carpenter, Karen Letter 235 3-4

Carpenter, Scott L. Letter 235 3-4

Carrothers, Barbara Letter 235 3-4

Casillas, Rudy Letter 93 2-21

Chadwick, Karen Letter 161 2-104

Champagne, Carla Letter 165 2-105

Champagne, Gene Letter 209 2-146

Chapman, Jeff Letter 235 3-4

Christian, Karen Letter 74 2-20

Clark, James Letter 235 3-4

Coleman, Edwin Letter 59 2-19

Conner, Charles Letter 201 2-145

Contwell, Al Letter 235 3-4


Table 1-3


Cook, Chadd Letter 235 3-4

Coppinger, Gene Letter 235 3-4

Coryell, Mark Letter 46 2-18

Cottens, Jerry Letter 235 3-4

Cotton, Josephine Letter 235 3-4

Croak, James Letter 235 3-4

Crosby, G Letter 235 3-4

Crouchlits, Jennie Letter 235 3-4

Crowley, Kenneth Letter 44 2-18

Cruz, Richard Letter 104 2-22

D, Cathy Letter 38 2-17

Dalton-Rabago, Pamela Letter 6 2-2

Dannds, Jerry L. Letter 235 3-4

Davis, Robert B Letter 235 3-4

Dearstyne, William Letter 226 2-147

Dengak, Marie Letter 235 3-4

Denman, Nancy Letter 235 3-4

Denman, Peter Letter 235 3-4

Desrosiers, Donna Letter 75, 120 2-20, 2-24

Devon, Zona Letter 235 3-4

Dilley, Jean (WA) Letter 116 2-23

Dilley, Jean (AZ) Letter 235 3-4

Dillinger, Dolly A Letter 235 3-4

Dyer, Dawn Letter 204 2-145

Eckart, Kathryn Letter 235 3-4

Eckart, Red Letter 235 3-4

Egner, Bill Letter 235 3-4

Elden, Wanda L. Letter 235 3-4

Ellis, James Letter 100 2-22

Elton, Wallace Letter 115 2-23

Enger, William Letter 235 3-4

Erb, Glenn Letter 235 3-4

Erick, Charles Letter 235 3-4

Evans, L&L Letter 235 3-4

Exe, Richard Letter 235 3-4

Fagerquist, Larry Letter 235 3-4

Featherstone, Roger Letter 15, 155, 180, 181, 163 2-5, 2-47, 2-105, 3-2

Finley, Pat Letter 235 3-4

Finstrom, Matt, Holly & Ariel Letter 149 2-38

Fitschen, Carole Letter 235 3-4


Table 1-4


Fitschen, Robert Letter 235 3-4

Fitzner, Lisa E. Letter 215 2-146

Flowers, Christopher Letter 202 2-145

Flowers, Taira Letter 87 2-21

Flynn, Letter 235 3-4

Frahm, Larry Letter 235 3-4

Frederiksen, Curt Letter 235 3-4

Freeman, Nancy Letter 150 2-38

Freeman, Nancy (AZ) Letter 235 3-4

Frye, Bob Letter 147 2-36

Frye, Bob (AZ) Letter 235 3-4

Frye, Shelley Letter 235 3-4

Fugate, Peggy Letter 220 2-147

Fura, David Letter 47 2-18

Gaede, Marnie Letter 48 2-18

Gavelek, Joe Letter 231 3-3

Geisenhoff, Earl J. Letter 235 3-4

Gennarelli, Diane Letter 128 2-25

George, James Letter 235 3-4

Gilbert, Mark Letter 235 3-4

Gillis, Carl Letter 235 3-4

Girard, Jackie Letter 235 3-4

Glover, Nanette Letter 219 2-146

Gonsalves, Gail Letter 126 2-24

Goodale, Donna Letter 31 2-17

Goodrich, Gary Letter 235 3-4

Gordon, Janine Letter 142, 213 2-32, 2-146

Gorton, Charles Letter 235 3-4

Graffagnino, Mary Ann and Frank Letter 29 2-16

Graham, Keith Letter 235 3-4

Grantham, Shawna Letter 235 3-4

Gray, Carolyn Letter 136 2-28

Gray, James Letter 133 2-26

Greene, Jeanine Letter 132 2-26

Grueninger, Tim Letter 235 3-4

Guerrero, Barbara Letter 53 2-19

Guidi, Rita Letter 33, 88, 125 2-17, 2-21, 2-24

Gurnow, Mark Letter 10 2-2

Guzman, Albo Letter 7 2-2

Haley, John Letter 235 3-4


Table 1-5


Halling, Allen L. Letter 235 3-4

Hammer, Michael Letter 235 3-4

Hampton, Kevin Letter 235 3-4

Hanna, Neal Letter 45 2-18

Hansen, Chris Letter 235 3-4

Harper, Gordon Letter 235 3-4

Harris, Kirk Letter 235 3-4

Harris, Robert & Debra Letter 56 2-19

Hartigan, Zay Letter 144 2-34

Heidbrink, Leslie Letter 235 3-4

Heidinger, Richard Letter 140 2-31

Heiselt, Gabby Letter 235 3-4

Heiselt, James Letter 235 3-4

Henry, John Letter 235 3-4

Henry, Joyce Letter 235 3-4

Hernandez, Tiffany Letter 235 3-4

Heron, Veronica Letter 35 2-17

Hester, Vicki Letter 198 2-144

Hickman, Vanessa Letter 190 2-140

Higley, Tammy Letter 235 3-4

Hill, Ginger Letter 210 2-146

Hill, Sandra Letter 235 3-4

Hillman, David Letter 235 3-4

Hillner, J.C. Letter 235 3-4

Hing, Michael Letter 11 2-3

Hoboat, David L. Letter 235 3-4

Hodiak, Diane Letter 42 2-18

Hoeffling, Eugene Letter 235 3-4

Hoey, Don Letter 235 3-4

Hood, Chris Letter 167 2-105

Hood, Gary Letter 235 3-4

Huckfolda, Dick Letter 235 3-4

Huffs, W. Larry Letter 235 3-4

Huggenvik, Jodi Letter 92 2-21

Hughes, Hannah Letter 235 3-4

Hughes, Kevin Letter 235 3-4

Hunt, Paul T. Letter 235 3-4

Ingram, Gary Letter 235 3-4

Jacobs, Sky Letter 188 3-2

Jacobson, Allen L. Letter 235 3-4


Table 1-6


Jarrell, Joseph Letter 159 2-104

Jeffrey, Anna Letter 139 2-30

Jenkins, Annette Letter 235 3-4

Johnson, Joc Letter 235 3-4

Jones, Johanna Letter 106 2-22

Jordan, Gary Letter 235 3-4

Karr, Mary Letter 235 3-4

Kay, Greg Letter 211 2-146

Keck, Aubrey Letter 26 2-16

Keeime, Desirey Letter 235 3-4

Keimis, Jeff Letter 235 3-4

Kelley, Lawrence Letter 24, 196 2-16, 2-144

Kellogg, Quinn Letter 129 2-25

Kelly, Daniel E. Letter 235 3-4

Kelmis, Jeff Letter 235 3-4

Kendall, Sandra Letter 235 3-4

Kimby, Steven E. Letter 235 3-4

Kittredge, David Letter 235 3-4

Kittredge, Karen Letter 235 3-4

Klopatek, Carole Letter 168, 169, 170 2-105, 2-124

Koepike, Jay Letter 235 3-4

Koetter, Tim Letter 235 3-4

Kozma, John Letter 214 2-146

Kravcov Malcolm, Karen Letter 25, 114 2-16, 2-23

Krieg, Jim and Kathy Letter 137 2-29

Krieg, John (AZ) Letter 20 2-10

Krieg, John (AK) Letter 235 3-4

Krieg, Karen Letter 235 3-4

Krieg, Kathy Letter 235 3-4

Krumm, Jim Letter 235 3-4

Kurtz, Andy Letter 8 2-2

Kuwanwisiwma, Leigh Letter 195 2-143

Lambertus, Sharon Letter 222 2-147

Lance, Jerry Letter 235 3-4

Lape, Terry Letter 235 3-4

Law, Goeff Letter 235 3-4

Lee, Michael C. Letter 235 3-4

Leisestad, Jerry Letter 235 3-4

Leslie, Darlene Letter 227 2-147

LeStarge, Wendy Letter 145 2-35


Table 1-7


Levendowski, Merrilee Kinney and Dan Letter 134 2-27

Lewis, Barnaby V. Letter 18, 194 2-9, 20142

Lintecum, Kelly Letter 228 2-148

Livingston, Ron Letter 81 2-20

Longfield, Sherrill Letter 235 3-4

Lopez, Sam Letter 235 3-4

Losey, Kevin E. Letter 131 2-26

Luptak, Roger Letter 235 3-4

Lytle, Heidi Letter 108 2-22

Macias, Tom Letter 172 2-124

Magill, Sue Letter 107, 223 2-22, 2-147

Marks, Darrell Letter 203 2-145

Marks, Makaius Letter 94, 95 2-21

Marrow, Michael J. Letter 235 3-4

Matty, Chris Letter 235 3-4

Matty, George Letter 235 3-4

McCauley, Joshua Letter 123 2-24

McCollister, Michael Letter 160 2-104

McDonald, Thomas Letter 21, 70 2-11, 2-20

McDonald, Tom Letter 178 2-133

McFarland, Dennis A Letter 235 3-4

Mckee, Derek Letter 98 2-21

McMillan, Don Letter 235 3-4

McMullen, Patrick Letter 176, 185 2-125, 2-139

McQuillan, Barbara Letter 235 3-4

Messenger, Red Letter 235 3-4

Metivier, Pam Letter 91 2-21

Michaud, Rene Letter 235 3-4

Micksch, Carol Letter 235 3-4

Micksch, Greg Letter 235 3-4

Miller, Georgia A. Letter 235 3-4

Miller, Linda Letter 36 2-17

Miller, Russ Letter 179 2-133

Miller, Tom Letter 235 3-4

Millman, Eric Letter 235 3-4

Miniuk, Jacqueline Letter 28, 89 2-16, 2-21

Miniuk-Sperry, Colleen Letter 55 2-19

Mischell, Robert Letter 235 3-4

Mischell, Trudy Letter 235 3-4

Montgomery, Esq., Susan B. Letter 154, 186 2-47, 2-139


Table 1-8


Monti, Frank Letter 235 3-4

Montijo, Frank Letter 235 3-4

Morgan, Jerold G. Letter 235 3-4

Morrow, Kristen Letter 235 3-4

Moser, Paul Letter 54 2-19

Most, Terry Letter 235 3-4

Muñoz., Henry C. Letter 141 2-31

Murphy, Carolyn Letter 235 3-4

Nash, Bill Letter 235 3-4

Nelson, Geraldine Letter 235 3-4

Nelson, Gordon Letter 235 3-4

Nelson, Ken Letter 235 3-4

Neuesley, John M. Letter 235 3-4

Neumann, Renee Letter 58 2-19

Noncutt, Grant Letter 235 3-4

Norcutt, Richard Letter 235 3-4

Nordan, Laura Letter 171 2-124

Norman, Bob Letter 235 3-4

Norman, Clayton Letter 110 2-22

North, Chad Letter 235 3-4

Nosie, Vanessa Letter 224 2-147

Novak, Vic Letter 235 3-4

O’Connor, Cornelia Letter 84, 118 2-24

O’Neill, Vicki Letter 99 2-22

O’Rourke, Terry Letter 235 3-4

Ogo, Linda Letter 234 3-3

Olson, C.R. Letter 235 3-4

Orsofield, Charles N Letter 235 3-4

Oxford, Rex Letter 57 2-19

Pastor, Mike Letter 174 3-1

Pavelek, Joan Letter 235 3-4

Pavelek, Ken Letter 235 3-4

Paxton, Harold Letter 78 2-20

Payne, Guy Letter 235 3-4

Peat, Evelyn Letter 43 2-18

Peddle, J Letter 235 3-4

Pedersen, Annette Letter 63, 82 2-19, 2-20

Peltier, Drew Letter 60 2-19

Pemberton, Celeste Letter 189 2-140

Pepin, Cheryl Letter 235 3-4


Table 1-9


Pepin, Larry Letter 235 3-4

Perea, Orlando Letter 182 2-136

Perkins, Bonnie Letter 235 3-4

Perry, Kenny Letter 235 3-4

Petersburg, David K. Letter 235 3-4

Peterson, Claire Letter 235 3-4

Phillips, Sally Letter 235 3-4

Phillips, Sean Letter 65 2-19

Pike, Naelyn Letter 83 2-21

Pilgrim, Barry Letter 235 3-4

Pina, Loren Letter 216 2-146

Plath, Greg Letter 235 3-4

Plath, Jim Letter 235 3-4

Porter, John Letter 235 3-4

Potter, Leonard A Letter 235 3-4

Pottyjohn, Larry Letter 235 3-4

Prchal, Steven Letter 30 2-16

Puddefoot, Jean Letter 235 3-4

Quillen, Robert Letter 235 3-4

Quinlan, Jim Letter 76 2-20

Rachel, Bernard Letter 235 3-4

Rafoth, Richard Letter 111 2-22

Rambler, Terry Letter 158, 175, 177 2-97, 2-124, 2-133

Rangel, Manuel Letter 27 2-16

Reeves, Joe Letter 235 3-4

Reinhard, Matthew Letter 90 2-21

Reynolds, Lyle Letter 235 3-4

Reynolds, Troy Letter 5, 14 2-1, 2-5

Richards, Christopher Letter 64 2-19

Richards, Pat Letter 230 2-148

Richter, John L Letter 235 3-4

Ringler, Jim Letter 235 3-4

Rings, Sally Letter 68 2-20

Robb, Natalie Letter 72 2-20

Robinson, C Dennis Letter 235 3-4

Rodriquez, Carlos Letter 235 3-4

Romero, Greg Letter 9 2-2

Romero, Richard Letter 235 3-4

Roth, Roger Letter 235 3-4

Royer, Michael Letter 119 2-24


Table 1-10


Rozanki, Tyler Letter 235 3-4

Rubach, Will Letter 34, 77 2-17, 2-20

Russell, Wendy Letter 225 2-147

Russell, William Letter 235 3-4

S, Fred Letter 235 3-4

S, J Letter 212 2-146

Sanchez, Manuel G. Letter 235 3-4

Santori, Nancy Letter 113 2-23

Sarish, Allan Letter 235 3-4

Sauer, A Letter 39, 40, 96 2-17, 2-21

Scanlon, Peter Letter 221 2-147

Schanz, Dan Letter 235 3-4

Schepers, Stan Letter 13 2-3

Schmidt, Barbara Letter 235 3-4

Schmidt, Barbara M Letter 235 3-4

Schmidt, Frederick E Letter 235 3-4

Schmidt, Joyce E. Letter 235 3-4

Schroeter, Rogil Letter 62 2-19

Senman, Gary J Letter 235 3-4

Sherry, Constance Letter 122 2-24

Shicks, Troy Letter 235 3-4

Shields, David and Kathleen M Letter 235 3-4

Shiley, Brandon Letter 235 3-4

Shores, Michael Letter 218 2-146

Sinclair, Marion Letter 235 3-4

Sinclair, Merle Letter 235 3-4

Sinclair, Patti Letter 235 3-4

Sloan, Dylan Letter 207 2-146

Small, Marsha Letter 121 2-24

Smith, Daniel Letter 235 3-4

Smith, Myron Letter 12 2-3

Smith, Rich Letter 23 2-15

Snodgrass, Rick Letter 235 3-4

Sohocki, D. Letter 235 3-4

Sohocki, Dennis Letter 235 3-33-4

Sohocki, Dennis and Dena Letter 200, 232 2-144, 3-3

Soldan, Ted Letter 148 2-38

Sorenson, Nancy Letter 235 3-4

Sorenson, Robert Letter 235 3-4

Sorenson, Robert and Nancy Letter 146 2-35


Table 1-11


Spellman, Don Letter 235 3-4

Spellman, Kathy Letter 235 3-4

Spragett, Cedra & Eric Letter 32 2-17

Steckline, Robert T Letter 235 3-4

Stegman, Bart Letter 50 2-18

Steinmetz, Frank Letter 199 2-144

Sternquist, Dennis A Letter 235 3-4

Steuter, Don Letter 205 2-146

Stevens, Dorothea Letter 153 2-47

Stokes, Ken Letter 235 3-4

Stone, Tim (WA) Letter 117 2-24

Stone, Tim (AZ) Letter 235 3-4

Strayer, Becky Letter 235 3-4

Strong, Daryl Letter 235 3-4

Sullivan, Tim Letter 235 3-4

Summers, Shannon Letter 152 2-46

Swanson, Lesly Letter 164 2-105

Taegen, TC Letter 235 3-4

Taunt, Linda Letter 145 2-35

Taylor, David Letter 235 3-4

Terrill, Michael Letter 235 3-4

Thiel, Dianne Letter 233 3-3

Thomas, Albert Letter 235 3-4

Titmus, Andrew Letter 235 3-4

Torrez, Juan Letter 235 3-4

Tucker, Kathleen Letter 17, 71 2-8, 2-20

Tuttle, Carol Letter 235 3-4

Tuttle, Kenn Letter 235 3-4

Urman, Michael R Letter 191, 192 2-141

Valder, Carolina Letter 61 2-19

Valencia, Ruth Letter 173 3-1

Vannulli, Dominique Letter 235 3-4

Vaunvelli, Dominic Letter 235 3-4

Verhoef, Darrell Letter 235 3-4

Vernon, Alton Letter 235 3-4

Vernon, Bonnie Letter 235 3-4

Verty, Tom Letter 235 3-4

Vickery, Gary Letter 235 3-4

Waddell, Sonny Letter 235 3-4

Waddell, Tristen Letter 235 3-4


Table 1-12


Warren, Barbara Letter 52 2-18

Warren, John W. Letter 235 3-4

Warrington, Malcolm Letter 235 3-4

Waters, Kathy Letter 235 3-4

Waters, Paul Letter 235 3-4

Watkins, Jackie Letter 109 2-22

Watson, Jason Letter 235 3-4

Weaver, Reece Letter 235 3-4

Webster, Darryl Letter 235 3-4

Weil, Charles Letter 41 2-17

Weise, Karen Letter 235 3-4

Weise, Ken Letter 235 3-4

West, Joanne Letter 102 2-22

Whitman, Frances Letter 85, 127 2-21, 2-24

Wilkey, James Letter 105 2-22

Wilkinson, Cliff Letter 51 2-18

Williams, James Letter 235 3-4

Williams, Margaret Letter 235 3-4

Wilson, Chris Letter 235 3-4

Wilson, Laura Letter 235 3-4

Wilson, Melissa Letter 229 2-148

Wilson, Russell Letter 235 3-4

Wise, John Letter 124 2-24

Witzeman, Bob Letter 183, 184 2-136, 2-138

Wolff-Krauter, Kelly Letter 22, 72 2-12, 2-20

WongCarter, Austin Letter 73 2-20

Wright, David Letter 235 3-4

Wright, David Thomas Letter 193 2-142

Wright, Jennifer Letter 235 3-4

Yeargain-Williams, Peggy Letter 67, 97 2-20, 2-21

Years, Thelma Letter 235 3-4

York, Jared Letter 235 3-4

York, Jesse Letter 235 3-4

Yowes, Howard Letter 235 3-4

Zongker, Jane C. Letter 235 3-4

Zongker, Layle K. Letter 235 3-4

Zuke, Lee Letter 235 3-4


Table 2-1

Table 2: Responses to Public Scoping Comments Submitted During the Public Scoping Period,

May 24, 2014 through June 23, 2014

Comment

Number Comment Response

Letter 5 - Reynolds, Troy

1 my son and I own a small 40 acer placer claim,

Superstition #3 AMC 406084 1S 12E sec31 . Will this

project take away any of our placer rights?

Consistent with Forest Service Manual 2800, Chapter 2810,

Section 2813.11, the locator of a mining claim acquires rights against

other possible (peaceable) locators when the locator has complied with

the applicable Federal and State laws. Where more than one locator is

involved on the same land, Forest Service actions should be impartial

to all known locators of that land, as the controversy is the

responsibility of the locators, not the Forest Service, to settle.

2 concerns about road access? during and after project. All Baseline activities would be accessed using existing forest roads,

previously disturbed areas, and short term temporary access roads

(Section 2.3 preliminary EA). Improvements would be necessary along

portions of existing forest roads and previously disturbed areas. Road

improvements include widening the roadway and widening turns to

allow access for all equipment. Short term temporary access roads

would not require construction activities because a tracked drill rig and

light duty truck would access the site only once. Reclamation would be

implemented immediately after use for short term temporary access

roads and previously disturbed areas would be reclaimed when

monitoring activities have concluded.

3 this area is nice, how will it be left? Disturbance associated with Baseline activities would be reclaimed

when data gathering activities are complete. Drill pads and test trenches

would be restored to pre-disturbance conditions. Short term temporary

access roads would be reclaimed immediately after use. Improvements

to existing roads would include smoothing out rough areas and

widening of turns. Previously disturbed areas would also be used as

temporary access roads to minimize new disturbance.


Table 2-2

Comment


Letter 6 - Dalton-Rabago, Pamela

1 I would like to look for another area for the Tailings

rather than the selected area. This is a forest service

property used by much of the public where as there is

more that enough land that is owned by the State Land

Trust and zoned industrial at the base of the mountains

and South of US 60 just West of Gonzales Pass.

This comment is outside the scope of analysis of the preliminary EA

(Section 1.5). The purpose of this project is to collect baseline

hydrological, geochemical, and geotechnical data on these aspects of

the environment on an area that may be considered for a potential

tailings storage site (Section 1.4).

Letter 7 - Guzman, Albo

1 We need to open this mine. Resolution Copper Co. We

needs jobs here in Superior






Letter 8 - Kurtz, Andy

1 I feel the mine is being responsible. I think this session

is not.


(Section 1.5).

Letter 9 - Romero, Greg

1 Science based decisions are the pillars of fundamentally

sound decisions regarding the copper mine project

The affected environment and environmental consequences evaluated

in the preliminary EA for Baseline activities, include: Water Resources,

Soil Resources, Vegetation Communities and Fire Regimes, Invasive

Species, Wildlife and Special Status Species, Range, Cultural

Resources, Travel Management and Public Safety, Recreation, Visual

Resources, Air Quality, Climate Change, and Noise. Please refer to

Chapter 3 to review this analysis.

Letter 10 - Gurnow, Mark

1 I believe the project is important and proceed without

delay. The long term potential economic impact is

difficult to ignore.

The Forest Service appreciates your time and effort to participate in this

NEPA process and hopes that you will continue to provide additional

input to further our efforts in managing public resources. Personal

preferences and opinions expressed by the public are one of many

viewpoints considered by the Forest Service when making decisions,

however individuals submitting comments must meet the requirements

specified in 36 CFR Part 218, Subparts A and B, in order to be

considered eligible to file an objection.


Table 2-3

Comment


2 There are recreational and ..... concerns with disruption

to native land. However, the positives for outway any

issues, or potential issues caused by the data gathering.

Section 3.11 of the preliminary EA evaluates potential effects on

recreation.

3 There are ..... and visual concerns with disruption to

native land.

A visual analysis was conducted for Baseline activities and impact

results documented in a Visual Resource Technical Report were used to

develop the analysis in Section 3.12 of the preliminary EA.

Letter 11 - Hing, Michael

1 I “do not” support the tailings to be dump anywhere in

the Tonto National Forest area. I was sold on the project

with the intent it was going to the Pinto Valley open pit.

This is not happening.






2 Contamination is my big concern. Effects to Water Resources, including potential contamination, are

discussed in Section 3.3 of the preliminary EA.

Letter 12 - Smith, Myron

1 The more quality data the better and easier the final

decision will be.









Letter 13 - Schepers, Stan

1 My concern is the effects on the area with the drilling

activity with regards to dust in the air

Effects on the area from the Baseline activities in regards to air quality

are discussed in the preliminary EA in Section 3.13.

2 My concern is...the road conditions and maintaining the

road,

All Baseline activities would be accessed using existing forest roads,

previously disturbed areas, and short term temporary access roads

(Section 2.3 preliminary EA). Improvements would be necessary along

portions of existing forest roads and previously disturbed areas. Road

improvements include widening the roadway and widening turns to

allow access for all equipment. Short term temporary access roads

would not require construction activities because a tracked drill rig and


Table 2-4

Comment


light duty truck would access the site only once. Reclamation would be

implemented immediately after use for short term temporary access

roads and previously disturbed areas would be reclaimed when

monitoring activities have concluded.

3 We live near the road, so we’re worried about the light

and the noise from that as well.

Light emitted by the Project will be shielded and directed straight down

toward the work area. Based on design specifications provided by the

lighting manufacturer, it is unlikely that light emitted by the Project

will extend beyond a radius of greater than 90 feet around each Project

light source during typical operations. Please refer to Sections 3.12

(Visual Resources) and 3.15 (Noise) of the preliminary EA for

additional analysis of project impacts.

4 We have a concern as to whether that (drilling these test

wells) is going to have an impact on our well. Will they

be taking a lot of water that might impact our

well?...they are drilling holes and they say there is a

plate there where they would be able to put the tailings

there, and once you drill holes down and go through that

plate, isn’t that going to let the tailing seep down into

the aquifer or whatever at later dates?

Potential effects to groundwater are presented and discussed in the

preliminary EA (Section 3.3.3.3). The purpose of Resolution’s Plan is

to collect hydrological, geochemical, and geotechnical data in order to

provide baseline information on these aspects of the environment over

an area being considered for a potential tailings storage site. The pre-

decisional EA prepared by the Tonto National Forest complies with

CEQ NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1500) and Forest Service NEPA

Regulations (36 CFR part 220) for the proposed Baseline activities.

Chapter 3 of the EA considers direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts

of the Proposed Action on resources within and adjacent to the project

area, including surface water and ground water (see preliminary EA,

Section 3.3.3.4). As a part of their Plan, Resolution is proposing to

construct 16 drill sites to accommodate 16 groundwater testing and

monitoring wells, and complete 41 geotechnical drill holes and

piezometer installations. Any future construction and/or development

of a tailings facility is considered outside the scope of analysis of the

preliminary EA (Section 1.5).


Table 2-5

Comment


5 Why do they need to monitor the water when there is no

mining plan approved or anything yet? So it’s just

something doesn’t fit here. You know, are they drilling

for core samples to see if there is anything else out

there, due to the fact that they’ve staked the claims on

all the -- all the land out there has been staked

As described in Section 1.4 of the preliminary EA, the purpose of and

need for the proposed action is to collect hydrological, geochemical,

and geotechnical data to provide baseline information on an area that

may be considered for a potential tailings storage site. Monitoring of

groundwater is one part of Resolution’s proposed Plan currently under

review by the Forest Service, and will provide Resolution with baseline

hydrological data on an area that may be considered for a future tailings

site.

6 My concern is...the...., hours of operation. Section 3.15 of the preliminary EA describes the noise in the affected

environment and potential effects on resources, recreation, and adjacent

landowners.

Letter 14 - Reynolds, Troy

1 Will we still have access to our 40-acre mining claim? Public access of proposed activity areas would be managed by crew

members during roadway improvements and maintenance. No road

closures are expected to take place and road improvements would be

conducted in a manner that would allow continued use by the public.

2 During the drilling process will they allow us to check

the assay, what they find when they drill the hole? Will

we be allowed those assays of the material? Unfeathered

access when looking at the analysis? No restrictions?

What they find, we want to know.

The Tonto National Forest has provided Resolution with a copy of all

comments received during scoping. Consistent with Forest Service

Manual 2800, Chapter 2810, Section 2813.11, the locator of a mining

claim acquires rights against other possible (peaceable) locators when

the locator has complied with the applicable Federal and State laws.

Where more than one locator is involved on the same land, Forest

Service actions should be impartial to all known locators of that land,

as the controversy is the responsibility of the locators, not the Forest

Service, to settle.

Letter 15 - Featherstone, Roger

1 it is clear to the Coalition that we do not have enough

information to provide the Forest Service with the best

and most complete comments with the information that

is available on the project website....We respectfully

request an extension of at least two weeks (preferably

30) for us and other members of the public to provide

complete comments

The Tonto National Forest welcomes your comments throughout the

NEPA process. During the NEPA process comments are considered as

they are received consistent with Forest Service NEPA regulations and

36 CFR 218. Public notification regarding the initial preparation of the

EA was conducted in accordance with CEQ and Forest Service NEPA

regulations.


Table 2-6

Comment


Letter 16 - various

1 The US Forest Service’s (“USFS’s”) review outlined in

the scoping letter contains numerous legal and factual

errors and as such should be revised in order to comply

with federal law.

The May 13, 2014 scoping letter was based on the information

available at that time regarding Resolution’s proposed Baseline

activities. Since that time, the proposed action has been revised based

on internal and external scoping comments. Section 2.3 of the

preliminary EA describes the revisions made by Resolution to the

Proposed Action.

2 The proposal involves drilling and test trenches using

new, illegal “user created” roads, and existing Forest

Service roads.

Please refer to Section 2.3 of the preliminary EA for a description of

the Proposed Action including the access roads proposed for use during

the Baseline activities.

3 There is no reason this project to be undertaken except

for its connection to the Main Mine Plan. Therefore, the

proposed main mine is a connected action that must be

reviewed in one environmental review.

Resolution’s Baseline Plan, as described in Chapter 1 of the

preliminary EA is subject to the regulations found at 36 CFR part

228A. These regulations apply to all functions, work, and activities in

connection with prospecting, exploration, development, mining, or

processing of mineral resources and all uses reasonably incident

thereto, including data collection conducted to determine the feasibility

of a location for a potential tailings facility on National Forest System

lands. Determine the feasibility of a potential tailings facility is

considered a use that is reasonably incident to mineral exploration and

development of a potential mine. Additionally, the proposed Baseline

Plan represents part of a logical sequence of activities, and has been

found to be reasonable for the stage proposed by Resolution (Forest

Service Handbook 2809.15, Minerals and Geology, Chapter 10).

Resolution’s Baseline Plan would provide baseline information on

hydrologic, geochemical, and geotechnical data from mineral

exploration on National Forest System lands. This information would

be used to inform later, separate actions and proposals related to

Resolution’s proposed General Plan of Operations. As described in the

preliminary EA, the Baseline Plan has independent utility from the

General Plan of Operations and that separate action would be subject to

a separate review under NEPA and 36 CFR part 228A. Resolution is

entitled to conduct operations that are reasonably incidental to

exploration and development of mineral deposits on its unpatented

mining claims pursuant to U.S. Mining Laws. Under regulations of the


Table 2-7

Comment


U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Resolution must conduct mineral

exploration consistent with 36 CFR part 228A, and in accordance with

a plan of operations that has been approved by the Forest Service.

4 because of the connection of this proposed project to the

Main Mine Plan, and the controversial and complicated

nature of this project and because of the potential for

impact to cultural and sacred sites, and full

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be

prepared.

As discussed in the Preliminary EA, Section 1.5.1.4, the development

of the deep underground copper ore body is not a connected action to

the proposed Baseline Hydrological and Geotechnical Data Gathering

Activities, and therefore is not evaluated in the preliminary EA.

Based on the analysis presented in the preliminary EA the Forest

Supervisor will determine if an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

would be necessary. If an EIS is not necessary, the Forest Supervisor

will document that determination in a Finding of No Significant Impact

(FONSI) and issue a Decision Notice. If Resolution were to proceed

with development of the deep underground copper ore body or other

actions not addressed in this preliminary EA, the potential effects on

resources would be considered in a separate review under NEPA and

36 CFR part 228A.

5 The proposed project would heavily impact the Queen

Creek watershed.... The project needs to study closely,

carefully, and completely, the Queen Creek watershed

and the impacts of the project on the towns of Queen

Valley and Superior.

Effects to Water Resources from Baseline activities, including

watersheds, are discussed in Section 3.3 in the preliminary EA.

6 If the Forest Service does not consider the project and

the proposed main mine as part of the same project, then

the proper permitting authority is not the mining law or

the Forest Service 36 part 228 regulations, but the Forest

Service’s special use permitting regulations. In addition,

Rio Tinto is not “entitled” to have the project approved

under the 1872 Mining Law.

Connected actions are defined by CEQ as those actions that are closely

related and should therefore be analyzed together (40 CFR 1508.25).

Please see Section 1.5 in the Preliminary EA for an explanation of

independent utility and connected actions relative to Resolution’s

proposed Baseline activities.

Because the activities proposed by Resolution in their Baseline Plan are

considered a use that is reasonably incident to mineral exploration, they

are explicitly exempted from special use authorization. Consistent with

36 CFR part 251.50(a), special uses are designated as all uses of

National Forest System lands, improvements, and resource, except

those authorized by the regulations governing…minerals (part 228).


Table 2-8

Comment


Therefore, Forest Service special use authorization does not apply to

Resolution’s Baseline plan.

7 The Forest Service must fully comply with the National

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and all other cultural

and religious freedom protection laws.

Section 1.6 of the preliminary EA discusses compliance with NHPA

and other relevant regulations. Section 3.9 of the preliminary EA

discloses effects to cultural resources and SHPOs concurrence with the

findings based on current information. It is anticipated that the

“Ethnographic/Ethnohistoric Study of the Superior Area, Arizona”

(Study) will be completed prior to a final decision being reached on the

Baseline Plan. The Forest Service will consider the findings of the

Study, in conjunction with Tribal comments which come out of

government to government consultation in the final decision on the

Baseline Plan.

Letter 17 - Tucker, Kathleen

1 Resolution’s (and a couple of elected officials) “want” is

not more important than saving the water supply, the

geo‐stability of the area, preventing air, ground, and

water pollution from tailings and tunnels, the destruction

of ancient sites, the privatization of public lands for the

sake of greed.. ..to enrich a foreign corporation.

As discussed in the preliminary EA, Section 1.5.1, the development of

the deep underground copper ore body is not considered a connected

action to the proposed Baseline activities, and therefore is not evaluated

in the EA. That separate action would be subject to a separate review

under NEPA and 36 CFR part 228A.

2 That copper isn’t going anywhere. One day, technology

may allow mining that doesn’t destroy any area, and I

hope the Forest Service waits for that day.






3 President Eisenhower was well aware that Oak Flat was

within the copper corridor when he specifically

prohibited mining in the area.











Table 2-9

Comment




















4 I want future generations to enjoy this beautiful area.

Please don’t allow any further intrusion by mining, or

testing, of this Federally Protected Land.









Letter 18 - Benallie, Jr., Larry; Lewis, Barnaby V.

0 we. would like to reiterate that the GRlC-THPO opposes

and does not approve of mining activities of any type.

The proposed project area is within the ancestral lands

of the Four Southern · Tribes (Gila River Indian

Community; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian

Community; Ak-Chin Indian Community and the

Tohono O’Odham Nation).







Table 2-10

Comment


2 If Resolution’s geotechnical data gathering activities are

unable to avoid these archaeological properties,

Resolution Copper Mining, LLC in conjunction with

their archaeological consultants, will be required to

develop an historic property treatment plan (HPTP) and

submit the HPTP for Section 106 compliance review.

Section 3.9 of the preliminary EA discloses effects to cultural resources

and SHPOs concurrence with the findings based on current

information. The Proposed Action is not expected to affect any known

cultural resources listed in or eligible for the NRHP. It is anticipated

that the “Ethnographic/Ethnohistoric Study of the Superior Area,

Arizona” (Study) will be completed prior to a final decision being

reached on the Baseline Plan. The Forest Service will consider the

findings of the Study, in conjunction with Tribal comments which

come out of government to government consultation in the final

decision on the Baseline Plan.

Letter 19 - Bever, Victoria

1 ADOT is planning a construction project (US 60, Silver

King – Town of Superior) that will impact one of the

proposed access routes shown in your map. I believe

you can access all of the shown boring locations using

an alternate route from your map (Hewitt Station Rd).

I’ve attached your map with the conflict area marked.

Resolution made modifications to their Proposed Action based on

internal and external scoping comments received during the Scoping

Period (Section 2.3 of the preliminary EA). Resolution agreed not to

use FR 2395 to access the Baseline activities from US 60.

Letter 20 - Krieg, John

1 We respect the areas that are off limits to motorized

vehicles and can’t imagine the area closed to ATVs, but

open to large drilling rigs, bulldozers, road graders and

the necessary equipment to support this type of activity.

Public access of proposed activity areas would be managed by crew




Short term temporary access and previously disturbed areas to be used

for access would be reclaimed immediately following Baseline

activities.

2 If we lost FSR 252, we would be basically be cut off

form the TNF and our wonderful trails.

FR 252 is an existing forest road that would remain open during

construction and implementation of Baseline activities. No road



3 The proposed drilling would forever ruin the nature of

the area, as it has done in the area behind Oak Flats.

Effects to Visual Resources and Recreation are evaluated in

Sections 3.11 and 3.12 in the preliminary EA.


Table 2-11

Comment


Letter 21 - McDonald, Thomas

1 Expand the submitted RC tailings site geological

sampling plan to include some regions within the

tailings footprint where the Mescal Limestone (Ym on

the geologic map), the Escabrosa Limestone (Me on the

map), and the Martin Formation (Dm on the map) have

surface expression to investigate if solution channels are

present and, if so, whether the channels extend to the

depth of the current water table.

Resolution developed the proposed locations by evaluating the need for

hydrological and geotechnical data while minimizing potential impacts

to National Forest System lands. Section 2.3 of the preliminary EA

describes the location of each geotechnical drill site. Resolution

currently has four proposed hydrological test wells DS-I, DS-J, DS-K,

and DS-L to investigate the limestone sequences in the Apache Group

(Mescal) and Paleozoic (Escabrosa, Naco and Martin) units near

surface and outcrops located in the northwestern portion of the

investigation area. The boreholes will allow Resolution to determine

(through geophysical logging and analysis of cuttings) the degree of the

fracturing within the subsurface units including the limestone should

they be present at depth as anticipated. Aquifer testing in the

hydrologic test wells will provide information regarding water

production and the hydrogeologic properties including transmissivity of

the unit. Based on current understanding of the hydrology in the basin,

groundwater flows are likely to be in a west / southwesterly direction

towards Whitlow Dam. The limestone units appear to be bounded on

all sides by geologic units that have historically been less transmissive

to flow including the Pinal Schist, Gila Conglomerate, and Proterozoic

diabase.

2 Keep public access to all current roads within the

tailings footprint during the data collection period.





3 Within the tailings footprint, any significant vegetation

(such as saguaros, ocotillos, and hedgehog cacti) that

will be adversely affected by the data collection

activities and/or the infrastructural changes to support

those activities should be carefully removed and either

replanted or offered at no cost to local governments

and/or local non‐profit organizations.

Applicant-proposed Environmental Protection BR-4 states the Project

activities would comply with the Biological Resources Monitoring Plan

for Resolution Copper Mining, LLC Plan of Operations; Baseline

Hydrologic and Geotechnical Data Gathering Activities on Tonto

National Forest, dated June 2013. Mitigation Measure MM-3 specifies

that Saguaro, barrel, pincushion, hedgehog cacti, ocotillo, and agave

species would be avoided.


Table 2-12

Comment


4 All waste products (fuel, lubricants, solvents, waste

water, etc.) developed as a result of the data collection

process should be disposed of in an EPA certified

landfill.

Public safety, including the use of hazardous materials, will be

managed in accordance with FSMs 770 and 7730 as well as through the

use of Applicant-proposed EPMs identified in section 2.3.6, of the

preliminary EA and also discussed in Section 3.10 (Travel

Management and Public Safety).

Letter 22 - Wolff-Krauter, Kelly

1 In Arizona, Arizona Revised Statute (ARS) § 17-1 02

codifies state ownership of wildlife. The Department has

public trust responsibility and primary authority to

manage and regulate take of wildlife within the state of

Arizona irrespective of landownership, excepting those

wildlife existing on tribal trust-status lands.


wildlife and wildlife habitat.

2 The extent of the trenches, road improvement, and the

footprints of the drilling and hydrological sites are

quantified as 96.04 acres within the Plan of Operation.

This creates a loss of important Sonoran desert habitat.

Impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat should be

evaluated and a mitigation plan should be developed to

offset the loss to wildlife resources. Arizona Game and

Fish Commission Policy (attached) require the

Department to develop mitigation plans for impacts to

wildlife and habitat for land and water projects.

Based on internal and external comments received during Scoping,

Resolution has made modifications to their Proposed Action

(Section 2.3 preliminary EA), and updated disturbance acreage

estimates are provided in Table 2-1 of Chapter 2. Effects to Wildlife

and Special Status Species are evaluated in Section 3.7, including any

mitigation measures proposed by the applicant and/or the Forest

Service.

3 More specific information is needed to determine the

impacts to wildlife, due to increased vehicle traffic and

noise in the project area. The equipment at each drill site

would likely disrupt behavior and cause wildlife to leave

the area. The potential for noise disturbance associated

with drilling, roadway improvement and construction,

grading and brush removal should be evaluated.

Measures should be identified that avoid or minimize

the potential for noise disturbance.

Effects to Wildlife and Special Status Species, including effects from

noise, are evaluated in Section 3.7 of the preliminary EA. And Noise,

in general, is evaluated in Section 3.15.


Table 2-13

Comment


4 This area is heavily used by OHV recreationists and

hunters. We support your plan that current access

continue to be open unless significant public safety

concerns mandate temporary closure.





5 We also recommend that the 3.39 miles of short term

temporary roads be reclaimed immediately and rendered

impassable after mine activity is completed and to

prevent further disturbance to wildlife.

Short term temporary access roads will be reclaimed immediately after

use (Sections 2.3.5 of the preliminary EA).

6 Executive Order 13443 requires the Forest to “ensure

that agency plans and actions consider programs and

recommendations of comprehensive planning efforts

such as State Wildlife Action Plans, the North American

Waterfowl Management Plan, and other range-wide

management plans for big game and upland game

birds”.

Section 1.3 of the preliminary EA discloses applicable regulations and

Section 3.7 describes the affected environment and discloses effects to

wildlife including big game and upland game bird species.

7 We recommend avoiding potential impacts to important

game species such as mule deer, whitetail deer, javelina,

cottontail rabbits and quail. Potential impacts to all

wildlife in the area should be identified and evaluated.

Effects to Wildlife and Special Status Species are evaluated in

Section 3.7 in the preliminary EA.

8 Impacts to vegetation should be minimized and any

protected native plant be protected and relocated

adjacent to the site in adherence to Arizona’s native

plant laws. We support Resolution’s plan for

reclamation ofthese sites and the use of weed free native

Sonoran desert vegetation in these efforts as well as the

cleaning of equipment to prevent the spread of invasive

plants. In addition, we recommend providing further

information on strategies to address plant survival post

planting, as well as measures to prevent degradation of

rehabilitated areas by foot traffic and/or vehicles after

completion.

Applicant-proposed Environmental Protection BR-4 states the Project

activities would comply with the Biological Resources Monitoring Plan

for Resolution Copper Mining, LLC Plan of Operations; Baseline

Hydrologic and Geotechnical Data Gathering Activities on Tonto

National Forest, dated June 2013. Mitigation Measure MM-3 specifies

that Saguaro, barrel, pincushion, hedgehog cacti, ocotillo, and agave

species would be avoided. Reclamation would involve reseeding using

weed-free native species seed (MM-4). Salvage and transplanting is

anticipated to result in increased rates of revegetation success.

Effects to Vegetation Communities and Invasive Species are evaluated

in Sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the preliminary EA.


Table 2-14

Comment


9 The Forest should determine if there is any potential for

the introduction of noxious weeds, pathogenic fungi

(chytridiomycota), and other organisms which may

cause disease or alteration to ecological functions.

Forest Service follows policy on addressing noxious weeds

(Section 3.6); see also the Tonto National Forest’s website on seed

testing policy:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/tonto/landmanagement/resourcemanage

ment/?cid=fsbdev3_018789. Noxious weed mitigation is addressed in

the preliminary EA (Section 3.6.3.3). Noxious weeds currently exist

throughout the project area. The weed specific mitigation is meant to

reduce introductions and the spread of these species. Effects to Noxious

Weeds are evaluated in Section 3.6 of the preliminary EA. Aquatic

habitat that is thought to support pathogenic fungi is not known to exist

within the proposed project area.

10 We recommend surveys for Sonoran desert tortoise and

burrows be conducted prior to disturbance of the sites

and we support your Biological Monitoring Plan with

particular protocols established for the monitoring and

avoidance of desert tortoise (Gopherus morajkai) and

Reticulate Gila Monster (Heloderma Suspectum)

individuals and shelter sites. Please utilize the following

guidelines found on our Department website for project

planning and implementation

Effects to Wildlife and Special Status Species are discussed in

Section 3.7 of the preliminary EA.

11 The Department is concerned with the cumulative

impacts of this project; including impacts from mining

should minerals be located. The effect of mineral

exploration can reasonably be foreseen to be actual

mining activity at the site should minerals be located.

This project, therefore, could result in significant effects

on the human environment depending on the amount

and type of minerals located. The Department is

interested in the potential mining activity which could

result from the exploration.




may be considered for a potential tailings storage site related to

Resolution’s proposed General Plan of Operations. The General Plan of

Operations is a separate proposal and will be subject to a separate

review under NEPA and 36 CFR part 228A.


Table 2-15

Comment


Letter 23 - Smith, Rich

1 The area described in the released documents is located

in the heart of a highly used and much valued

Off_highway Vehicle (OHV) area in the Mesa and

Globe districts

Section 3.11 of the preliminary EA evaluates potential effects on off

highway vehicles use and recreation.

2 The activities described in the Data Gathering Plan,

while limited in scope have substantial impact to OHV

recreation in the area.... the proposed improvements

completely remove the element of interest and challenge

from these modified road sections.

Several existing forest roads are currently maintained as a high-

clearance vehicle road (Forest Service maintenance Level 2), and

Resolution has determined that some road segments are in sufficient

condition to allow construction equipment access without

improvement. Existing forest roads requiring improvement may include

widening the road bed and/or widening turns to permit construction

equipment access. The Proposed Action improvements along forest

roads would still meet maintenance Level 2 standards.

3 Following the Data Gathering Plan to its next step

described in the Mine Plan of Operations, these same

routes will be completely closed over time assuming

that the plan moves forward with this site as a tailings

storage area. The loss of the closed routes will be

substantial to the OHV community and we have

additional concern that another iconic route popularly

called the Montana Mountain loop (routes 172, 172A

and 650) may be impacted and possibly in jeopardy due

to their proximity to the mining operations.

No roads will be closed during the course of this proposed project. As

discussed in the preliminary EA, Section 1.5.1, the development of the

deep underground copper ore body is not a connected action to the

proposed Baseline activities, and therefore was not evaluated in the EA.

An appropriate analysis and environmental document will be prepared

to address the General Mining Plan.

4 find another location to be used as a tailings storage area

and in doing so leave the much valued OHV routes in

this area undisturbed. We have no specific expertise in

mine operations and planning but like much of the

public would rather see tailings stored in an area already

disturbed by previous mining







Table 2-16

Comment


5 we estimate the loss of high quality OHV routes to be in

the 30+ mile range.





Please refer to Section 3.11 of the preliminary EA for additional

information on recreation resources.

6 In the recently released Draft EIS published by the

Tonto National Forest, we observe that there are

additional routes proposed to be closed to motorized

traffic in this area in addition to the 30+ miles that will

eventually be lost to the Resolution Mine project.

Section 2.3 of the EA describes the Proposed Action including access

roads, and Table 3-1 in Section 3.2 describes the projects where there is

potential for cumulative impacts, to include the draft Travel

Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement, when considered

with the proposed Baseline activities.

Letter 24 - Kelley, Lawrence

No Comments

Letter 25 - Kravcov Malcolm, Karen

No Comments

Letter 26 - Keck, Aubrey

1 Having lived in that area and knowing so many of those

people and their families I know how their health has

suffered from the mines. Small children (pre‐school)

suffering from asthma and cancers. The older people

with all their lung related issues. Isn’t it past time that

we took the human cost into account?









Letter 27 - Rangel, Manuel

No Comments

Letter 28 - Miniuk, Jacqueline

No Comments

Letter 29 - Graffagnino, Mary Ann and Frank

No Comments

Letter 30 - Prchal, Steven

No Comments


Table 2-17

Comment


Letter 31 - Goodale, Donna

No Comments

Letter 32 - Spragett, Cedra & Eric

No Comments

Letter 33 - Guidi, Rita

No Comments

Letter 34 - Rubach, Will

No Comments

Letter 35 - Heron, Veronica

No Comments

Letter 36 - Miller, Linda

1 It sickens me to have to drive through the incredible

destruction that mining has caused in the Superstition

Mountains. NO MORE. There should be NO MORE

mining anywhere in or around the Superstition

Mountains. It is a blight that will last forever.









Letter 37 - Andresen, Lori

No Comments

Letter 38 - D, Cathy

No Comments

Letter 39 - Sauer, A

No Comments


No Comments

Letter 41 - Weil, Charles

No Comments


Table 2-18

Comment


Letter 42 - Hodiak, Diane

1 Oak Flat campground ia prime birding territory and

includes at least 4 species on the threatened list

according to Natiional Audobon Society. Bird habitat is

iin extreme decline, particularly in ARizona. This is

particularly true in Arizona where mining projects strip

away precious resources and deposit toxic waster for

wildlife. Birdlng is a billion dollar industry and Az is

known to be a birding hotspot. Continuing mining

operations in critical habitat will imperil both species

the associated economic benefits from birding tourism.

The purpose and need for Baseline activities is to gather additional

baseline hydrological and geotechnical data (Section 1.4 of the

preliminary EA) to determine the area’s suitability as a tailings storage

location. Section 1.5.1 describes the consideration of connected actions.

Potential effects of mining the deep underground copper ore body will

be described based on Resolution’s general mine plan, and they would

be addresses in a separate and appropriate NEPA document.

Letter 43 - Peat, Evelyn

No Comments

Letter 44 - Crowley, Kenneth

No Comments

Letter 45 - Hanna, Neal

No Comments

Letter 46 - Coryell, Mark

No Comments

Letter 47 - Fura, David

No Comments

Letter 48 - Gaede, Marnie

No Comments

Letter 49 - Bickel, Bettina

No Comments

Letter 50 - Stegman, Bart

No Comments

Letter 51 - Wilkinson, Cliff

No Comments

Letter 52 - Warren, Barbara

No Comments


Table 2-19

Comment


Letter 53 - Guerrero, Barbara

No Comments

Letter 54 - Moser, Paul

No Comments

Letter 55 - Miniuk-Sperry, Colleen

No Comments

Letter 56 - Harris, Robert & Debra

No Comments

Letter 57 - Oxford, Rex

No Comments

Letter 58 - Neumann, Renee

No Comments

Letter 59 - Coleman, Edwin

1 The damage the mining companies leave behind ‐‐ to the

land, to the watersheds and to the ground water ‐‐ is

irreversible and reprehensible.

Effects to Water Resources are evaluated in Section 3.3 of the EA.

Letter 60 - Peltier, Drew

No Comments

Letter 61 - Valder, Carolina

No Comments

Letter 62 - Schroeter, Rogil

No Comments

Letter 63 - Pedersen, Annette

No Comments

Letter 64 - Richards, Christopher

No Comments

Letter 65 - Phillips, Sean

No Comments

Letter 66 - Binder, Fred

No Comments


Table 2-20

Comment


Letter 67 - Yeargain-Williams, Peggy

No Comments

Letter 68 - Rings, Sally

No Comments

Letter 70 - McDonald, Thomas

No Comments

Letter 71 - Tucker, Kathleen

No Comments

Letter 72 - Wolff-Krauter, Kelly; Robb, Natalie

No Comments

Letter 73 - WongCarter, Austin

No Comments

Letter 74 - Christian, Karen

No Comments

Letter 75 - Desrosiers, Donna

No Comments

Letter 76 - Quinlan, Jim

No Comments

Letter 77 - Rubach, Will

No Comments

Letter 78 - Paxton, Harold

No Comments

Letter 79 - Bittick, Cynthia

No Comments

Letter 80 - Avanti, Annemarie

No Comments

Letter 81 - Livingston, Ron

No Comments

Letter 82 - Pedersen, Annette

No Comments


Table 2-21

Comment


Letter 83 - Pike, Naelyn

No Comments

Letter 85 - Whitman, Frances

No Comments

Letter 86 - Bingham, Brent

No Comments

Letter 87 - Flowers, Taira

No Comments


No Comments

Letter 89 - Miniuk, Jacqueline

No Comments

Letter 90 - Reinhard, Matthew

No Comments

Letter 91 - Metivier, Pam

No Comments

Letter 92 - Huggenvik, Jodi

No Comments

Letter 93 - Casillas, Rudy

No Comments

Letter 94 - Marks, Makaius

No Comments

Letter 95 - Marks, Makaius

No Comments


No Comments

Letter 97 - Yeargain-Williams, Peggy

No Comments

Letter 98 - Mckee, Derek

No Comments


Table 2-22

Comment


Letter 99 - O’Neill, Vicki

No Comments

Letter 100 - Ellis, James

No Comments

Letter 101 - Arandelovic, Janice

No Comments

Letter 102 - West, Joanne

No Comments

Letter 103 - Bastek, Christopher

No Comments

Letter 104 - Cruz, Richard

No Comments

Letter 105 - Wilkey, James

1 The riparian Queen Canyon is home to many unique AZ

animals. Once mining removes the last of the water, all

those animals will perish. Please do not let a huge,

insensitive mining company kill these rare, and unique

animals.

The purpose of the proposed Baseline activities is to collect baseline

hydrological, geochemical, and geotechnical data (Section 1.4 of the

preliminary EA) over an area being considered for a potential tailings

site. Section 1.5.1 describes the consideration of connected actions.

Letter 106 - Jones, Johanna

No Comments

Letter 107 - Magill, Sue

No Comments

Letter 108 - Lytle, Heidi

No Comments

Letter 109 - Watkins, Jackie

No Comments

Letter 110 - Norman, Clayton

No Comments

Letter 111 - Rafoth, Richard

No Comments


Table 2-23

Comment


Letter 112 - Arneson, Carla

1 Without environmentally safe and secure waste disposal,

there is no mine. Without knowing how waste will be

treated and transported, how much waste there will be,

and what toxins it will contain there is no way to judge

the suitability of a site






2 the EIS must fully analyze all direct, indirect, and

cumulative impacts – including from Rio Tinto’s main

mine proposal.

Based on an initial review, it has been determined that an

Environmental Assessment (EA) would be the appropriate level of

analysis for the proposed Plan. The preliminary EA complies with CEQ

NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1500) and Forest Service NEPA

Regulations (36 CFR part 220) for the proposed Baseline activities.

Chapter 3 considers direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the

Proposed Action on resources within and adjacent to the project area,

regardless of land status.

As described in the preliminary EA, the Baseline Plan has independent

utility from Resolution’s General Plan of Operations and that separate

action would be subject to a separate review under NEPA and 36 CFR

part 228A (Sections 1.4, 1.5).

Letter 113 - Santori, Nancy

No Comments

Letter 114 - Kravcov Malcolm, Karen

No Comments

Letter 115 - Elton, Wallace

No Comments

Letter 116 - Dilley, Jean

1 air quality issues are of significant concern Effects on the area from the Baseline activities in regards to air quality

are discussed in the preliminary EA in Section 3.13.


Table 2-24

Comment


Letter 117 - Stone, Tim

1 In every country and every state where Rio Tinto

operates, there are past and pending law suits seeking

damages from the decimated country, ruined lives and

deaths of it’s inhabitants. Is this the company that you

want to give a foothold in one of the most pristine areas

of the Sonoran Desert?









Letter 118 - O’Connor, Cornelia

No Comments

Letter 119 - Royer, Michael

1 The toxic tailings location would heavily affect Boyce

Thompson Arboretum, a world‐class botanical preserve.


the deep underground copper ore body is not a connected action to the

proposed Baseline activities, and therefore is not evaluated in the EA.

Letter 120 - Desrosiers, Donna

No Comments

Letter 121 - Small, Marsha

No Comments

Letter 122 - Sherry, Constance

No Comments

Letter 123 - McCauley, Joshua

No Comments

Letter 124 - Wise, John

No Comments


No Comments

Letter 126 - Gonsalves, Gail

No Comments

Letter 127 - Whitman, Frances

No Comments


Table 2-25

Comment


Letter 128 - Gennarelli, Diane

No Comments

Letter 129 - Kellogg, Quinn

1 Oak flats has a long history in the climbing world, it

became a mecca in the early 90’s because of

competitions that were held there, attracting hundreds of

professional and average climbers alike. Since then it

has been a winter destination for people all over the

country, and world. I personally travel all the way from

Ohio almost every year to live in Oak Flats for months

at a time.









2 And this is saying nothing of the terrible environmental

impacts on the fragile mountaintop ecosystem









3 And this is saying nothing of the ... desecration of sacred

Native lands

Please refer to Section 3.9 of the preliminary EA for a description and

discussion of Native lands.

4 And this is saying nothing of the ... false promise of

jobs.









Letter 130 - Bryant, Leslie

1 This area of interest is a very important recreational area

which brings in a large amount of money to our state’s

economy yearly.


recreation.


Table 2-26

Comment


2 But as a resident of a near by town, I disagree with this

plan to put Rio Tinto’s tailing so near the Queen Creek

watershed. I believe this will have a future impact on

our water in Queen Valley, which will have a future

impact on our existence.





tailings storage site (Section 1.4). Effects from the Baseline activities to

Water Resources are discussed in Section 3.3 of the preliminary EA.

Letter 131 - Losey, Kevin E.

1 this project, in whole, is detrimental to our environment.

This project will affect communities surrounding, as

well as “downstream”.

Effects to Water Resources are evaluated in Section 3.3 of the EA.

Letter 132 - Greene, Jeanine

No Comments

Letter 133 - Gray, James

1 This area is one of the most pristine and scenic desert

areas within the Southwest and the TNF. It is hard to

imagine anyone would allow the destructive actions

being proposed by Resolution Copper.




2 I’m very concerned about the natural habitat destruction

that will take place if heavy construction and drilling

rigs are allowed within this area. There is a possibility

that the fragile balance between the land and wildlife

will suffer under these proposed actions.

Effects to Vegetation Communities are evaluated in Section 3.5 and

effects to Wildlife and Special Status Species are evaluated in


3 Access to this area will be denied to those who regularly

seek the beauty and solitude this unique desert

environment brings





4 This is a highly regarded recreational area used by

hikers, horseback riders, hunters, birdwatcher’s, and

naturalist from Arizona and throughout the United

States.


recreation.


Table 2-27

Comment


5 This area provides a vital economic boost for the small

rural communities that border this area of the TNF. The

future economic and recreational impact on these

communities must not be upset due to destruction of this

pristine and fragile environment.


recreation.

6 Any contamination or altering of the water supply in this

desert region should be a grave concern to us all. Since

we are already in a drought condition, this would further

alter the balance in nature.

Effects to Water Resources, including potential contamination, are


7 The agency cannot assume that Rio Tinto/Resolution

Copper has “rights” to proceed with the project yet at

the same time argue that the project is not part of the

proposed main mine proposal.

Section 1.4 and 1.5.1 of the preliminary ES describe that this project is

a “stand alone” project and has separate utility; the development of the


Proposed Action, and therefore was not evaluated in the preliminary

EA. If Resolution were to proceed with development of the deep

underground copper ore body or other actions not addressed in this

preliminary EA, the potential effects on resources would be considered

in a separate review under NEPA and 36 CFR part 228A.

8 I believe this proposed project violates the “forest-wide

goals, objectives, and management area standards for

protecting the air, cultural resources, recreation

opportunities, soils, visual resources, water and

wildlife”.

Chapter 3 of the preliminary EA considered the forest wide goals,

objectives, and management area standards for all of the resources

analyzed in the EA including air, cultural resources, recreation

opportunities, visual resources, soils, water and wildlife.

Letter 134 - Levendowski, Merrilee Kinney and Dan

1 Please reconsider the location of the mine tailings. We

are not against the mining operation, only the site of the

tailings deposit.






2 We are also members of the Boyce Thompson

Arboretum which, we understand, would be adversely

affected by the tainted water shed.

Effects to Water Resources, including potential contamination, are



Table 2-28

Comment


3 We moved to Superior to enjoy its ... accessibility. No road closures are expected to take place and road improvements

would be conducted in a manner that would allow continued use by the

public.

4 We use this area often for hiking and jeep riding plus

javelina, white tail, and quail hunting.... We moved to

Superior to enjoy its quiet beauty, spectacular views


recreation. And Section 3.12 evaluations potential effects to visual

resources.

Letter 135 - Barrett, Sylvia

1 My husband and I along with our friends (sometime as

many as 24 or more) quad ride in that area. As we ride

in the area we encounter many other kids and adults

doing the same thing.... This area is extremely important

for recreation.

Section 3.11 of the preliminary EA evaluates potential effects on off

highway vehicles use and recreation.

2 I urge you to reconsider allowing a tailings site to go in

that area.






Letter 136 - Gray, Carolyn

1 This area is one of the few remaining pristine and

natural environments in Southern Arizona. Devastation

from mining is evident from Miami to Pinto Valley

from San Manuel to Hayden from Kearney to Superior.

All of this is due to disregard of the land, the

environment, the water, and the wild life.







Table 2-29

Comment


2 I also, believe the “tailings” will cover a very large area

of land in terms of miles in length by thousands of feet

high. A person can see these consequences in Miami,

Arizona where nothing will ever grow or be sustained

again.



develop the analysis in Section 3.12 of the preliminary EA. The

purpose and need for Baseline activities is to gather additional baseline

hydrological and geotechnical data (Section 1.4) to determine the area’s

suitability as a tailings storage location. Section 1.5.1 describes the

consideration of connected actions. Potential effects of mining the deep

underground copper ore body will be described based on Resolution’s

general mine plan, and they would be addresses in a separate and

appropriate NEPA document.

3 And then there is another consequence of these

chemicals leaching into the water table flowing west

towards Gold Canyon and Apache Junction, involving

Queen Valley and Boyce Thompson Arboretum, a

famous botanical preserve.







Letter 137 - Krieg, Jim and Kathy

1 The United States Forest Service (USFS) should include

the analysis of this proposed drilling and exploration as

an integrated part of the impacts associated with the full

mining plans.









2 The United States Forest Service (USFS) should include

... the impacts associated with the full mining plans.

Otherwise, the Forest Service will be in violation of

both NEPA and the CEQ regulations, which do not

allow segmentation of impact analysis on projects.











Table 2-30

Comment




















3 If the use of recreational areas, the Boyce Thompson

Arboretum, and the Superstition Wilderness areas were

to be compromised with drilling, many residents and

visitors to Arizona would be missing the natural beauty

this state offers.


recreation. And Section 3.12 evaluations potential effects to visual

resources.

4 It is apparent that the environmental and economic

impacts to the area would be negative

Please refer to Chapter 3 of the preliminary EA for a description of the

environment in the Project Area and discussion of potential impacts to

several resources. Economic impacts from the Proposed Action are

discussed in Chapter 3.

Letter 139 - Jeffrey, Anna

1 I was told and have seen many Native American

artifacts and burial grounds in the very vicinity RCC is

planning to use.... it more valuable for its ... vivid

historical and archaeological significance and study.

Effects to Cultural Resources from the Baseline activities are described

in Section 3.9 of the preliminary EA. There are no known/identified

cultural resource sites that would be affected by the Baseline activities.


Table 2-31

Comment


2 if the drilling is allowed it would be an open door for

more non reversible destruction on the land, water and

air.

Effects to Water Resources and Air Quality from the Baseline activities

are evaluated in Sections 3.3 and 3.13 of the preliminary EA.

3 Not only is it more valuable for its recreational uses ... Section 3.11 of the preliminary EA evaluates potential effects on

recreation.

Letter 140 - Heidinger, Richard

1 we found that nothing compares to Queen Valley. It is a

real jewel in Arizona’s crown of ideal settings. The wild

life is abundant, from foxes and eagles, to deer and even

a rare appearance of a black bear.









2 The possibility of a toxic tailings dump in the vicinity of

the water shed of our water supply is unthinkable! Even

the possibility, no matter how remote, is unthinkable!







3 The destruction of Queen Valley’s prosperity and land

values and the associated luscious golf course, would

result in untold millions of dollars.... the gain to

Superior, Queen Valley, and Boyce Thompson

Arboretum is almost non-existent. Queen Valley is

made up of a large percentage of seasonal residents as

well as many full-time residential homeowners. Some

have already mentioned the possibility of selling their

homes, afraid of collapsing land values.



proposed Baseline activities, and therefore is not evaluated in this EA.

Letter 141 - Muñoz., Henry C.

1 The area is a pristine hunting area with an abundance of

wildlife deer, javelinas, quail that is enjoyed by myself

and many hunters.


recreation, including hunting.


Table 2-32

Comment


2 The area is a pristine hunting area.... It is also a prime

hiking-mountain bike and horseback riding area.


recreation.

Letter 142 - Gordon, Janine

1 where is all of our water going? All of these years and

always having springs and running water to explore in

the desert....disappearing and gone. Per Resolution,

water will be piped to Maricopa County to replenish the

groundwater there. What happened to replenishing the

Superior/Queen Valley watersheds that be drawn down?

What is the quality of any remaining water going to be?

Tailing/Slag Mountains full of chemicals and poisons,

leaching into the groundwater. Wells running dry

already. Why would anyone be able to quantify that as

okay to happen?







2 the tailing mountains will distribute the chemicals and

poisons into the atmosphere, blowing thru this precious

wilderness habitat and impairing both wildlife and

mankind with health issues.

The purpose and need for this project is to gather additional baseline

hydrological and geotechnical data (see Section 1.4 of the preliminary

EA) to determine the areas suitability as a tailings storage location.

Section 1.5.1 describes the consideration of connected actions.

Potential air quality effects of tailings facility locations would be

evaluated along with the development of the deep underground copper

ore body under Resolution’s general mine plan in a separate and


3 subcontracted jobs to contractors who are not offering

above market wages, benefits, etc. We don’t need those

jobs to improve the local economy....only the Resolution

Trust direct hires will have those quality compensated

jobs and they don’t choose to live in [the local area]




4 Homes in Queen Valley will lose value.........if large

poison tailings are leaching in the groundwater, and

polluting the air with chemicals....if the water tables

continue to drop and wells dry up....who will want to

buy those homes or live in Queen Valley.





Table 2-33

Comment


5 why destroy the habitats of so many animals and people,

for a block mined copper project


baseline hydrological and geotechnical data (Section 1.4 of the

preliminary EA) to determine the area’s suitability as a tailings storage

location. Section 1.5.1 describes the consideration of connected actions.




6 why destroy the habitats of so many animals and people,

for a block mined copper project that is illegal to

consider in the first place due to grandfathered

protections put in place to protect the area due to its’

sacred importance to the Indian people.





























Table 2-34

Comment


7 Review putting the tailing/slag heap outside of Gold

Canyon, next to the Superstition Mtn Golf Course. Use

some State Trust or Tonto National Forest Land near

there






8 Queen Valley is unique, priceless and cannot be

duplicated anywhere else. The Tonto National Forest,

State Trust Lands, the Arboretum, Queen Creek,

Whitlow Dam, Picket Post Mountain..............just

scratch the surface of the many wonderful and

irreplaceable environments surrounding Queen Valley.









Letter 143 - Campos, Javier

No Comments

Letter 144 - Hartigan, Zay

1 I feel it is necessary to conduct a full EIS on the full

project as there are many reasons a mine of the type

suggested in the Poo is a bad choice for this area.









2 The biggest concerns I have are water for residents in

the area, the destruction of the scenic highway through

the area, and the destruction of some outstanding

recreational assets. In particular as regards just the

tailings study, I think the amount of tailings and the

toxicity of it will be too great for this sensitive area.

The preliminary EA addresses effects to Water Resources (Section 3.3),

Visual Resources (Section 3.12), and Recreation (Section 3.11) relative

to the proposed Baseline activities. Public access of proposed activity

areas would be managed by crew members during roadway

improvements and maintenance. No road closures are expected to take

place and road improvements would be conducted in a manner that

would allow continued use by the public including recreational use.


Table 2-35

Comment


Letter 145 - LeStarge, Wendy; Taunt, Linda

1 Under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, Queen

Creek is identified as an “impaired water” due to

exceedances of the surface water quality standard for

copper. Generally, listing as an impaired water may

impact Clean Water Act permits

Effects to Water Resources from Baseline activities, including water

quality, are discussed in Section 3.3 of the preliminary EA.

0 ADEQ would agree with the PoO as to the need of

obtaining permit coverage under: · The Arizona

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES)

Program’s Construction General Permit, · The AZPDES

De Minimis General Permit, and Discharges of water,

drilling fluids, or drill cuttings from a well, such as for

water quality sampling, hydrologic parameter testing,

well development, redevelopment, or potable water

system maintenance and repair purposes, are authorized

under a 1.04 General Aquifer Protection Permit (APP)

as long as the drilling and testing operations for each

drilling location meet the rule requirements.

Chapter 3 of the preliminary EA evaluates the potential direct, indirect,

and cumulative effects of the proposed Baseline activities. The

Baseline Activities, which can reasonably be expected to result in any

discharges into waters of the United States, would be subject to

compliance with CWA Sections 401, 402, and/or 404 as applicable.

Letter 146 - Sorenson, Robert and Nancy

1 There are many folks, like us, who winter in the area

whose property would be detrimentally effected by this

proposal.




2 Water pollution, air pollution, curtailing of recreational

activities, loss of wildlife habitat, and damage to

valuable historically and prehistorically significant sites

are just a few of the reasons that this location would be

unsuitable.





tailings storage site (Section 1.4). The preliminary EA addresses effects

to Water Resources (Section 3.3), Air Quality (Section 3.13), Wildlife

and Special Status Species (Section 3.7), and Cultural Resources

(Section 3.9) for the proposed Baseline activities


Table 2-36

Comment


3 Please reconsider the location of the tailings. It could be

placed in one of the abandoned pits from past mining

activities.






Letter 147 - Frye, Bob

1 I have concerns with water quality and quantity. Any

action has to have an overall Watershed Analysis to

protect the public. Historically most of copper mining

operations in Arizona have created water quality issues.

It is critical that all future projects address and prevent

these problems.... What will be the environmental

effects of trenching? This action need to be addressed

along with the soil and watershed issues.


quality, are discussed in Section 3.3 of the preliminary EA.

2 This project as proposed will add to the loss of Sonoran

Desert bajada habitats.... The Sonoran Desert is home to

60 species of mammals, more than 350 kinds of birds, at

least l00 reptiles and 20 amphibians. How will this

project affect them? This issue needs to be addressed in

detail.



3 Recreation is a major use of the proposed area. Large

numbers of people from the surrounding Phoenix area

use it for a variety outdoor recreation including

camping, off road vehicles, hunting, sight-seeing, etc. A

baseline of recreational use needs to be developed.


recreation.

4 Well over 2000 native species of plants occur within the

Sonoran Desert. How many of these species are present

in the project area and how will they be affected? This is

issue that needs to be qualified and quantified. The

world famous Boyce Thompson Arboretum is adjacent

to the proposed site. Is this project a compatible use with

such important asset?

Baseline activities would not preclude activities at the arboretum.


Visual effects are evaluated in Section 3.12 of the preliminary EA.


Table 2-37

Comment


5 Improvements to current secondary roads should be

minimized.



Period (Section 2.3 preliminary EA). Resolution made modifications

that would result in fewer disturbances to roads. Reclamation would be

implemented for previously disturbed areas and short-term temporary

access roads once Baseline activities have concluded

6 The visuals of this action need to be addressed A visual analysis was conducted for Baseline activities and impact



7 Why is this proposal is being presented as a minor

action when it is really a major environmental action

with long term affects?

From the analysis presented in the preliminary EA the Forest




(FONSI) and issue a Decision Notice.

8 Resolution was committed to sending all residents of

Queen Valley a notice of this proposed action along

with the opportunity to comment. Since this may not

have occurred I request an extension of the comment

period if there was indeed no such mailing.

The Legal Notice announcing the opportunity to comment on

Resolution’s proposed Baseline Plan was published in the Arizona

Capitol Times, the newspaper of record, on May 23, 2014, and on

May 21, 2014 in the Arizona Silver Belt. Consistent with CEQ

Regulations found at 40 CFR part 1501.7, affected and interested

persons were notified of the proposal with the mailing of a scoping

letter dated May 13, 2014. In addition, the proposal was uploaded to

the Forest’s Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) on May 22, 2014.

Please notify the ID Team Leader at comments-southwestern-

[email protected] of any other residents in Queen Valley or neighboring

communities who wish to be included in the project mailing list.

9 The proposed action is connected to the proposed main

mine and should be treated as one environmental

review. This action should not be separated from the

overall proposed action.










Table 2-38

Comment


10 Since this proposal is in support of a speculative and an

uncertain mine should new road construction be

allowed. I would think not.





tailings storage site (Section 1.4). Section 1.5.1 describes and discusses

potential connected actions to the Baseline activities.

11 What will be the environmental effects of trenching? Test trenches require a 60’x30’ area where vegetation and soils will be

disturbed to allow safe access of personnel to inspect and perform soil

infiltration tests. The test trenches would be reclaimed immediately

after all tests are complete.

Letter 148 - Soldan, Ted

1 I have to admit I’m astonished that such a toxic project

is even being taken seriously enough to warrant a study.

Particularly since this one so severely impacts an

important Native American site.




Letter 149 - Finstrom, Matt, Holly & Ariel

No Comments

Letter 150 - Freeman, Nancy

1 Trees of our forests are the Earth’s sentinels protecting

and ensuring the continuation of life. Trees provide

clean water, clean air, clean soil, shade and habitat. We

must protect them; they must flourish for life on the

Earth to continue.






2 Personally, I want to continue enjoying the National

Forest and the benefits they bring to my health and the

health of the planet.










Table 2-39

Comment


3 the present Congress would be bypassing the laws

created by past Congresses if they were to pass the Land

Swap Bill HR-6B


(Section 1.5).

4 Forests in the southwest were to be protected to preserve

rivers, streams and ponds to gather and conserve rain to

provide water for the growing western cities.

The Tonto National Forest management plan describes the multiple use

management goals, objectives and standards as described in Section 1.3

of the preliminary EA. Section 3.3 includes a discussion of the

applicable management goals, objectives, and standards for water

resources from the Tonto National Forest Land and Resource

Management Plan.

5 For the past four years, Resolution Copper has

continuously been pumping water from Shaft 9 and the

new Shaft 10.

Section 1.5.1 of the preliminary EA evaluates potential connected

actions to the Baseline activities, including the dewatering of Shaft No.

9 and Shaft No. 10. Chapter 3 of the preliminary EA evaluates the

potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts from the proposed

Baseline activities, and several current and future projects, including

Shaft 9 and 10 are included in the cumulative effects analysis

(Section 3.2 and Table 3-1).

6 AIG assessed that the underground blasting would make

the nearby climbing areas unpredictably unstable and

therefore unsafe for recreational climbers. The entire

southwest is an earthquake zone





tailings storage site (Section 1.4). As part of the Baseline activities

blasting would not be required.

7 A company spokesperson said that 2,000 of the jobs

would be construction jobs to get the mine in operation.

There are already buildings at the site, so the principal

construction will be the struts and conveyance system at

7,000 feet (they start mining at the lowest depth). There

will be no Arizonan company capable of accomplishing

this kind of work. How long will these 2,000 jobs last?


(Section 1.5).


Table 2-40

Comment


8 When Resolution has a rally in Superior to gather

support, there are a number of miners present. I have

questioned them. They are all working miners at the

nearby Pinto Creek, Miami or Hayden mines. They have

no intention of working at Resolution’s operation.









9 The current operations manager and almost half of the

management team are from Australia, South Africa and

Canada. [See http://resolutioncopper.com/about-us/].

And what taxes will the foreign managers be paying

here? David Salisbury, a former operations supervisor

told me, “Like all corporations, Rio Tinto will not pay

any Federal taxes. Senator John McCain said there

would be a billion dollars in the Federal coffers, but that

money will come from the federal income tax the

employees pay.” But what about the taxes the managers

will pay?




10 Resolution has already shown that they use out-of-state

contractors, as they used Boart Longyear out of Salt

Lake City (home of Rio Tinto’s Kennecott operation) to

do the explorative drilling project on National Forest

Lands between the Old Magma operations and Oak Flat

Campground. So how many of the jobs will go to

Arizonans?





Table 2-41

Comment


11 I always say if you want to know how mining creates

prosperous communities, drive through Globe, Miami,

Hayden and Ray where mining has been going on

continuously for 100 years. There is not a single

indication, monument or decent building that there was

every any prosperity for the miners. Anyone who is

pretending that mining brings prosperity to a community

is perpetuating a myth. The money went to New York

City investors in the past, and now goes to foreign

investors.









12 Resolution Copper admitted there would be subsidence

the size of Arizona’s “Meteor Crater,” which is nearly

one mile across, 2.4 miles in circumference and more

than 570 feet deep. No reclamation plan deals with this

huge crater and no reclamation plan can deal with this

huge crater.


























Table 2-42

Comment





13 but mountain will be a great burden on the surrounding

landscape and watershed of the Tonto National Forest,

not” only for its size, but also for its contents of milled

heavy metals that can be released to the environment.

Will the heavy metals include radioactive components

that are so prevalent in Arizona’s bedrock that when the

EPA published a study on technologically enhanced

radioactive materials (TENORM), the analysis had been

conducted in Arizona mine sites.


(Section 1.5).

14 One must take into account the critical situation of water

levels in Arizona, which have been lowering

continuously for the past 100 years. When President

Roosevelt created National Forests in order for the

population of the Southwest to have sufficient water, he

had no idea of the impact that modern pit mining and

subsidized cotton farming would take on Arizona’s

water supply.







15 To alleviate the problem, the Federal Government

subsidized Central Arizona Project (CAP)-the largest

and most expensive aqueduct system ever constructed in

the United States at a cost of $3 billion to taxpayers. The

project was envisioned to provide water to nearly one

million acres of irrigated subsidized cotton land in

Maricopa, Pinal and Pima counties, as well as municipal

water for metropolitan areas of Phoenix and Tucson.

However, the problems of lowering water tables

continues, especially east of Phoenix:

http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/Hydrology/Geophysic

s/documents/LandSubsidencelnArizonaFactSheet_003.p

df


(Section 1.5).


Table 2-43

Comment


16 Resolution Cooper will be using major amounts of

water. The Freeport-McMoran Sierrita mine’s water use

for processing the ore is at 27,000 acre feet per year.








17 Will the tailings contaminate Superior water? This comment is outside the scope of analysis of the preliminary EA





18 One delay was the tailings location-the Pinto Valley

mine site idea was finally abandoned. (It’s still a useful

mine.)






19 Resolution has over 150 wells listed on the ADWR well

inventory. However, there is sparse information on the

pumping from most of wells. Further, the “Other”

category of 48 wells remains undefined. However, many

of the “Other” category were drilled to 7,000 feet, so it

is not likely that the wells are used to pump water.


(Section 1.5). The purpose of Resolution’s Plan is to collect hydrologic,

geochemical, and geotechnical data in order to provide baseline

information on these aspects of the environment over an area being

considered for a potential tailings storage site.

20 During the reclamation efforts by Resolution at the old

Magma smelter and mill site, they purchased water from

Arizona Water Company, reported at a public meeting

with the Superior Town Council to be some 200,000

gallons a month during their reclamation project at the

old mill, smelter and tailings site. This source of water

from the Florence Junction well field serves

communities. What effect will it have on current users?









Table 2-44

Comment


21 That is to way when it comes to water, Resolution

Copper officials do not seem to have a clear concept of

Federal or Arizona water statutes.


(Section 1.5).

22 There needs to be a complete modeling of the hydrology

of the region and the impact on private wells in Supeior

region, Including • up to and Including wells up to and

including the town of Top of the World and private

ranchers In the region. Resolut;on Copper needs to be

proactive in analyzing the regional hydrology.






Water Resources are discussed in Section 3.3 of preliminary EA.

23 When the United States reserves public land for uses

such as Indian reservations, military reservations,

national parks, forest, or monuments, it also implicitly

reserves sufficient water to satisfy the purposes for

which the reservation was created.


(Section 1.5).

24 Ramifications of having a mile wide and deep crater in

the area with corresponding waste piles from the

diggings, the sump caused by subsidence will dewater

the surrounding forests and private ranchers’ wells in

the region and will serve as a catchment basin for the

rainwater that would have been delivered to Devil’s

Creek.


(Section 1.5).

25 In the January, 2000, U. S. Forest Service report: Water

and the Forest Service,

[http://www.stream.fs.fed.us/publications/PDFs/Watera

ndFS.pdf] created by the FS National Headquarters

(with taxpayers money) emphasizes the importance of

forests for maintaining a viable, clean water supply.

Certainly, the situation has not changed, only worsened,

in thirteen years. The Forest Service is not living up to

its own publicly-stated mission and goals-or well

researched reports.






Management Plan.


Table 2-45

Comment


26 Many individuals are seriously concerned about the

possibility of intensive mining in Arizona, where water

is very short and precious, and biodiversity is unusually

high. Take any acre in an Arizona National Forest and I

guarantee, you will find more diversity in flora, fauna,

reptiles and insects than any forest in any other state.





tailings storage site (Section 1.4).Impacts to resources from the

proposed Baseline activities are discussed in Chapter 3.

27 The mission of the USDA Forest Service is to sustain

the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s

forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and

future generations






Management Plan.

Letter 151 - Begalke, Donald

1 DUMPING MINING TAILINGS DOES NOT

ENHANCE THE FOREST NOR PROTECT THE

FOREST.... TAILINGS’ DUMPING WOULD BE A

HORRIBLE DESTRUCTION OF TNF






2 MUST BE MAINTAINED FOR U.S. CITIZENS ‐ MANY WHO USE IT FOR HIKING, OTHER

RECREATIONAL REASONS, RESEARCHES, AND

PHOTOGRAPHY ...!!!!!!!










Table 2-46

Comment


3 THE TNF IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE

WILDLIFE, THE BIRDLIFE, AND OTHER

NATURAL LIVES FOR IT IS THEIR HOME

APPROVED BY U.S. CITIZENS.









4 THE 5‐SQUARE MILES OF THE TNF REQUEST

WOULD DESTROY THE WATER RESOURCES

REQUIRED BY THE NATURAL INHABITANTS

AND THE TREES, SHRUBS AND OTHER PLANTS,

PLUS THE QUEEN CREEK WATER SHED.


quality, are discussed in Section 3.3 in the preliminary EA. Impacts to

vegetation and wildlife are discussed in Sections 3.5 and 3.7,

respectively.

5 PLEASE, TELL THE RIO TONTO COMPANY THAT

THEIR MINING TAILINGS ARE NOT

COMPATIBLE WITH REGULATIONS FOR THE

TONTO NATIONAL FOREST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


(Section 1.5). As described in Section 1.4 of the preliminary EA, the

purpose of the proposed action is to collect hydrological, geochemical,


may be considered for a potential tailings storage site.

Letter 152 - Summers, Shannon

1 There are Thousands of acres in the desert ... there has

got to be a better place for the tailings!






2 the place that is considered is in the middle of beautiful

trails close for people to enjoy hiking, 4 wheeling and

for hunters. It is close to people enjoying the beautiful

scenery


recreation.


Table 2-47

Comment


Letter 153 - Stevens, Dorothea

1 Toxic tailings Will destroy the beautiful desert and

animals, not to mention the surrounding communities.

The toxic damage is irreversible






2 The water use is too much for our dry land. This comment is outside the scope of analysis of the preliminary EA





Letter 154 - Montgomery, Esq., Susan B.

1 please accept this email to reiterate the ITCA’s request

(made earlier today) that the Forest Service extend the

comment period on the Tailings plan until such time as

the Forest Service can make the requested documents

available to ITCA (and therefore its 21 member tribes)

for review.... the 30 day limitation is applicable ONLY

once the EA process has been undertaken ... at this point

you have not prepared a draft EA ... This is because you

are only in SCOPING and under NEPA should yet have

decided where to go from here (EA/EIS) — because this

is informed by scoping.






regulations.

Letter 155 - various

1 Resolution Copper’s Proposed Plan of Operations will

adversely impact the Apaches’ ability to harvest and use

certain plants within the Operations area for ceremonial,

religious, medicinal, and sustenance purposes.

Resolution would not close any areas to use during their Baseline

activities. Effects to Cultural Resources from the Baseline activities are

described in Section 3.9 of the preliminary EA. There are no known or

currently identified cultural resource sites that would be affected by the

Baseline activities.

2 the US Forest Service’s (“USPS’s”) review outlined in



with federallaw. ...any USFS plan to continue its review

The scoping letter sent on May 13, 2014 was based on the information


activities. Since that time, there have been modifications to the

Proposed Action based on scoping comments. Section 2.3 of the


Table 2-48

Comment


of the PoO must· comply with federal law as detailed

herein. At a minimum, if the agency proceeds with its

review, an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS’ )

must be prepared due to the potential for _significant

impacts from the Project alone, and especially when

viewed with its cumulative impacts from other and/or

related activities as well as connected actions.


proposed action.

3 THE EIS or EA MUST FULLY ANALYZE ALL

DIRECT, INDIRECT, AND CUMULATIVE

IMPACTS- INCLUDING FROM RESOLUTION’S

MAIN MINE PROPOSAL The scoping letter states that

the agency will unilaterally limit its review of direct,

indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts and

ignore the impacts from Resolution’s proposed large

mine which is directly linked to the Project. Yet under

the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEP A”), the

USFS must fully review the impacts from all “past,

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.”

These are the “cumulative effect/impacts” under NEPA.

To comply with NEP A, the USFS must consider all

direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts

of the proposed action. 40 CFR §§ 1502.16, 1508.8,

1508.25(c).

Sections 1.4 and 1.5 of the preliminary EA describe that this project is

a stand alone project and has separate utility from other ongoing or

proposed activities, such as development of Resolution’s deep copper

ore body. Development of the deep underground copper ore body is not

a connected action to the Proposed Action, and therefore was not

evaluated in the preliminary EA. If Resolution were to proceed with

development of the deep underground copper ore body or other actions

not addressed in this preliminary EA, the potential effects on resources

would be considered in a separate review under NEPA and 36 CFR part

228A.

4 A cumulative impact analysis must provide a “useful

analysis” that includes a detailed and quantified

evaluation of cumulative impacts to allow for informed

decision-making and public disclosure. Kern v. U.S.

Bureau of Land Management, 284 F.3d 1062, 1066 (9th

Cir. 2002); Ocean Advocates v. U.S. Army Corps

ofEngineers, 361 F.3d 1108 1118 (9th Cir. 2004). The

NEPA requirement to analyze cumulative impacts

prevents agencies from undertaking a piecemeal review

of environmental impacts. Earth Island Institute v. U.S.

Forest Service, 351 F.3d 1291, 1306-07 (9th Cir. 2003).

Section 3.2 of the preliminary EA describes the methodology used to

conduct the cumulative effects analysis for Resolution’s proposed

Baseline Plan. Each resource evaluated in Chapter 3 of the preliminary

EA was examined for potential cumulative effects consistent with CEQ

regulations (40 CFR part 1508.7; 40 CFR part 1508.8) and Forest

Service NEPA requirements (36 CFR 220; FSH 1909.15, Section 15.1).


Table 2-49

Comment


The NEPA obligation to consider cumulative impacts

extends to aU “past,” “present,” and “reasonably

foreseeable” future projects. Blue Mountains, 161 F.3d

at 1214-15; Kern, 284 F.3d at 1076; Hall v. Norton, 266

F.3d 969,978 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding cumulative

analysis on land exchange for one development failed to

consider impacts from other developments potentially

subject to land exchanges); Great Basin Mine Watch v.

Hankins, 456 F.3d 955, 971-974 (9th Cir.

2006)(requiring “mine-specific ... cumulative data,” a

“quantified assessment of their [other projects]

combined environmental impacts,” and “objective

quantification ofthe impacts” from other existing and

proposed mining operations in the region).

5 Oregon Natural Resources Council Fund v. Brong, 492

F.3d 1120, 1133 (91 h Cir. 2007). Note that the

requirement for a full cumulative impacts analysis is

required in an EA, as well as in an EIS. See Te-Moak

Tribe of Western Shoshone, 608 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.

2010) (rejecting EA for mineral exploration that had

failed to include detailed analysis of impacts from

nearby proposed mining operations).







6 NEPA regulations also require that the agency obtain

the missing “quantitative assessment” information:

When an agency is evaluating reasonably foreseeable

significant adverse effects on the human environment in

an environmental impact statement and there is

incomplete or unavailable information, the agency shall

always make clear that such information is lacking. (a)

If the incomplete information relevant to reasonably

foreseeable significant adverse impacts is essential to a

reasoned choice among alternatives and the overall costs

of obtaining it are not exorbitant, the agency shall

include the information in the environmental impact

Reasonably foreseeable actions which may have a cumulative effect on

surface resources have been analyzed in preliminary EA in Chapter 3,

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (Table 3-1;

Figure 3-1).


Table 2-50

Comment


statement. (b) If the information relevant to reasonably

foreseeable significant adverse impacts cannot be

obtained because the overall costs of obtaining it are

exorbitant or the means to obtain it are not known, the

agency shall include within the environmental impact

statement: (1) A statement that such information is

incomplete or unavailable; (2) a statement of the

relevance of the incomplete or unavailable information

to evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse

impacts on the human environment; (3) a summary of

existing credible scientific evidence which is relevant to

evaluating the reasonably foreseeable significant

adverse impacts on the human environment, and (4) the

agency’s evaluation of such impacts based upon

theoretical approaches or research methods generally

accepted in the scientific community. For the purposes

of this section, “reasonably foreseeable” includes

impacts which have catastrophic consequences, even if

their probability of occurrence is low, provided that the

analysis of the impacts is supported by credible

scientific evidence, is not based on pure conjecture, and

is within the rule of reason.

7 CFR § 1502.22. “If there is ‘essential’ information at the

plan- or site-specific development and production stage,

[the agency] will be required to perform the analysis

under§ 1502.22(b).” Native Village of Point Hope v.

Jewell,--- F.3d ----, 2014 WL 223716, *7 (9th Cir.

2014). Here, the adverse impacts from the Project when

added to other past, present or reasonably foreseeable

future actions is clearly essential to the USPS’

determination (and dut-y to ensure) that the Project

complies with all legal requirements and minimizes all

adverse environmental impacts.








Table 2-51

Comment


8 the USFS must fully consider the cmnulative impacts

from all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future

projects in the region on, at a minimum, water and air

quality including ground and surface water quantity and

quality, recreation, cultural/religious, wildlife,

transportation/traffic, scenic and visual resources, etc.

At a minimmn, this requires the agency to fully review,

and subject such review to public comment in a draft

EA or EIS, the cumulative ·impacts from all other

mining, grazing, recreation, energy development, roads,

etc., in the region.

Section 3.2 of the preliminary EA describes the cumulative impact

methodology including the reasonably foreseeable future actions

considered. All of the resources considered in Chapter 3 were evaluated

for cumulative impacts.

9 the scoping letter is based on a seriously deficient view

regarding its duties to review these impacts. The agency

admits that Resolution has proposed a large-scale mine

in the area- indeed this Project is part of that proposal.

Yet, the scoping letter states that the USFS does not

intend on reviewing the cmnulative impacts (or any

impacts at all) from Resolution’s proposed mine.

Resolution has submitted other minerals-related

proposals to the Forest, such as the General Plan of

Operations. However, the impacts of that and other

proposals would be evaluated in separate NEP A

reviews. ...The agency s attempt to bypass review of

what clearly is a proposed mining plan for the “General

Mine (or “Main Mine’) violates NEPA. The fact that the

agency has yet to complete its review of this proposed

Main Mine does not mean that it is not “reasonably

foreseeable” under NEP A, as the company already

acknowledges it as a viable “proposed proj ect.” In New

Mexico x rel. Richardson v. Bureau of Land

Management, 565 F.3d 683,718-19 (lOth Cir. 2009), the

Tenth Circuit determined that future mineral activity

was “reasonably foreseeable” due to the fact that

“considerable exploration has already occurred on

























Table 2-52

Comment


parcels adjacent to the [challenged] parcel,” a

developable mineral deposit “is known to exist beneath

these parcels,” and the company “has concrete plans to

build” a mineral project on these lands. All of these

conditions are present here - as acknowledged by

Resolution. http://resolutioncopper.com/the-

project/mine-plan-of-operations/ (viewed June 22, 2014)

(Attachment B).





10 The Ninth Circuit has clearly held that proposed mining

projects must be fully reviewed in NEPA documents for

nearby projects. See Te-Moak Tribe of Western

Shoshone v. U.S. Dept. of / Interior, 608 F.3d 592, 603

(9th Cir. 2010) (rejecting EA for mineral exploration

that had failed to include detailed analysis of impacts

from nearby proposed mining operations). Even projects

that have not reached the formal proposal stage (which

is not the case here, since Resolution has already

submitted its Main Mine proposal to the USFS) are

considered “reasonably foreseeable” and must be

reviewed in this EA or EIS.





11 [P]rojects need not be finalized before they are

reasonably foreseeable. “NEPA requires that an EIS

engage in reasonable forecasting. Because speculation is

... implicit in NEP A, [ ] we must reject any attempt by

agencies to shirk their responsibilities under NEPA by

labeling any and all discussion of future environmental

effects as crystal ball inquiry.” Selkirk, 336 F.3d at 962

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). As the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also has noted,

“reasonably foreseeable future actions need to be

considered even ifthey are not specific proposals.” EPA,

Consideration of Cumulative Impact Analysis in EPA

Review ofNEP A Documents, Office ofFederal

Activities, 12-13 (May 1999), available at http://www.






Table 2-53

Comment


epa. gov I compliance/resources/policies/nepal

cumulative. pdf. (Attachment A)

12 Northern Plains Resource Council, Inc. v. Surface

Transp. Bd., 668 F.3d 1067, 1078-79 (9th Cir. 2011 ).

Additionally, the federal courts have routinely required

the agencies to review the ‘< impacts from future, not-

yet-proposed mineral activity when preparing EAs or

EISs for mineral leasing projects.





13 Center for Biological Diversity v. Bureau of Land

Management, 937 F.Supp.2d 1140, 115’7 (N.D. Cal.

2013) citing City of Davis v. Coleman 521 F.2d 661,

676 (9th Cir.l975~ and Northern Plains, 668 F.3d at

1079. ee also, Connor v. Burford, 848 F.2d 1441 (9t Cir.

1988)(future impacts of drilling must be analyzed when

preparing NEPA document for oil and gas lease);

Colorado Environmental Coalition v. Office of Legacy

Management, 819 F.Supp.2d 1193, 1209-09 (D. Colo.

2011)(impacts from future, as-yet-un-proposed mining

must be considered when preparing NEP A document

for leasing decision).





14 This [Resolution’s Main Mine] is in addition to any

other “past, present, or reasonably foreseeable futw-e

activity” in the area (e.g., grazing, ORV use, road use,

etc.). For example, federal and state agencies are

planning a major re-route/improvement of Highway 60

in the immediate area of the Project, with obvious

effects on natural resources, recreation, etc. See ADOT,

“U.S. Route 60 Superior to Globe Design Concept and

Environmental Impact Study,”

https://www.azdot.gov/projects/south-central!US- 60-

Superior-to-Globe-Design-Concept-and-EIS (viewed

June 22, 2014) (Attachment C); ADOT, “Scoping

Report, US 60 Superior to Globe,” (Attachment D).

Preliminary EA Section 3.2 and Table 3-1, describe the cumulative

projects evaluated including ADOT’s proposed improvement to

U.S. 60. The effects from past actions are described in the affected

environment for each resource analyzed in detail in Chapter 3 of the

preliminary EA.


Table 2-54

Comment


15 The scoping letter is wrong to argue that because this

Project is aimed at providing technical analysis for the

Main Mine, this means that the Main Mine is somehow

not “reasonably foreseeable.” Scoping letter at 5. NEPA

does not allow the agency to bifurcate its review on

these grounds. The USFS cannot ignore the undisputed

fact that the Main Mine is a proposal that has been

submitted by Resolution. Nov. 15,2013 letter from

Vicky Peacey, Senior Manager, Environmental and

External Affairs for Resolution Copper Mining LLC, to

Tonto Forest Supervisor Neil Bosworth (Attachment E).

Indeed, Resolution has highlighted to the public and

potential investors the fact that the Main Mine is a

viable mining proposal. “As promised, on November

15,2013 Resolution Copper filed a Mine Plan of

Operations with the U.S. Forest Service, which outlines

our detailed plans to design, construct and operate a

world-class mine. ‘ http://resolut.ioncopper.com/the-

project/mineplan- of-operations/ (viewed June 22, 2014)

(Attachment B).

Section 3.2 and Table 3-1 of the preliminary EA describes the

reasonably foreseeable projects included in the cumulative effects

analysis. These projects do not include the potential development of the

deep underground copper ore body; however, there are reasons given in

Section 3.2 as to why Resolution’s General Mine Plan of Operations is

not included in the cumulative effects analysis.

16 As the Main Mine PoO has been submitted to the USFS,

it (and any revisions) are part of the administrative

record for this Project, and incorporated into these

comments (along with all documents submitted by

Resolution regarding the Main Mine and this Project).

(Attachment B). Chapter One of the Main Mine PoO

also lists additional activities related to Main Mine that

have been proposed and/or approved (Tables 1.3-2 and

1.1.-3). Shown at:

http://49ghjw30ttw221aqro12vwhmu6s.wpengine.netdn

a-cdn.com/wpcontent/uploads/20 13/12/resolution-

copper-plan-of-operations-volume-one-introduction.pdf

(viewed June 22, 2014) (attachment H). Each of these







Table 2-55

Comment


activities are either direct, indirect, or cumulative

impacts that must be fully reviewed.

17 In addition to, and separate from, the agency’s duty to

review the cumulative and other impacts from the Main

Mine, NEP A requires that the Main Mine and the

Project be considered in one EA/EIS (certainly an EIS in

this case) as a “cmmected action” under NEP A. This is

because the Main Mine and the Project are part of one

interdependent mining project, as acknowledged by

Resolution. See Table 1.3-2 of the Main Mine PoO

http://49ghjw30ttw221aqro12vwhmu6s.wpengine.netdn

a-cdn.com/wpcontent/ uploads/20 13/ 12/reso lution-

copper-plan-of-operations-volume-one-introduction. pdf

(Attachment I) In that PoO Table and associated text,

Resolution admits that the “Baseline Hydrological &

Geotechnical Data Gathering Activities” “is being

conducted in support of the Resolution Copper Project

[the Main Mine].” Main Mine PoO at Vol. 1, p. 5.




























18 Even if the Mine could conceivably occur without the

previous or simultaneous occurrence of the Project (or

vice versa), which is not the case here, if it could not

occur without such actions it is a connected action and

must be considered within the same NEP A document as







Table 2-56

Comment


the underlying action. “[E]ven though an action could

conceivably occur without the previous or simultaneous

occurrence of another action, if it would not occur

without such action it is a ‘connected action’ and must

be considered within the same NEPA document as the

underlying action.” Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our

Env’t v. Klein, 747 F. Supp. 2d 1234, 1254 (D. Colo.

2010). That is certainly the case here, as acknowledged

by Resolution, that the Project is an integral part of the

Main Mine, and would not occur but for the Main Mine.

Similarly, as also admitted by Resolution, the Main

Mine would not occur without this Project. As such,

they are considered “connected actions” under NEP A

and must be considered in one EIS.























19 Yet, as admitted by the scoping letter, the Project is not

proposed to explore or mine mineral resources. It is

simply a proposal to gather geologic, water, and related

information. The only legal way that Resolution can

arguably claim any “rights” or “entitlement” to use these

public lands is if the Project was part of an exploration

or mining project on public lands. But here, the scoping

letter, in an attempt to justify the agency’s refusal to

review the impacts from the Main Mine and related

proposals, says that the Project is not part of any mining

or exploration project. The agency and Resolution

cannot have it both ways. They cannot argue that the

The scoping letter primarily serves to notify the public of proposed

activities and includes a short summary of general legal issues. It is not

required to, nor can it exhaustively describe the nuances of the U.S.

Mining Laws. In summary, Congress has provided a limited delegation

of authority to the United States Forest Service in 16 U.S.C. 551, which

provides general authority to regulate use of the National Forests.

However that authority is limited in the context of management of

locatable mineral operation authorized under the Mining Laws. “Nor

shall anything in such sections prohibit any person from entering upon

such national forests for all proper and lawful purposes, including that

of prospecting, locating, and developing the mineral resources thereof.

Such persons must comply with the rules and regulations covering such


Table 2-57

Comment


company has rights/entitlements under the Mining Law

based on the exploration or development of mineral

resources, yet divorce the Project from any plan to

conduct such exploration/development of minerals. In

other words, the Project is either part of an

exploration/mining proposal (and it is not exploration

since the company has already submitted its plan to

mine/develop the minerals), and the Mining Law

applies, or it is not. The scoping letter says that the

Project is not part of a mining plan. Thus, the alleged

rights/entitlements under the Mining Law do not apply.

On the other hand, for the Mining Law to apply the

USFS must consider the Project and the Main Mine

linked, and thus the “connected action” and/or

“cumulative impacts” requirements under NEPA

necessarily apply.

national forests.” 16 U.S.C. 478. The mining laws provide for a

statutory right of access and extraction (30 U.S.C. 22 & 26) and allow

for reasonable and incidental use without material interference (30

U.S.C. 612). The judicial interpretation of this complex set of laws is

that the Forest Service cannot categorically prohibit mining activity or

deny reasonable mineral operations under the mining laws (Havasupai

Tribe v. U.S. 752 F. Supp. 1471, 1492 (9th Cir. 1990)) and that the

Forest Service may not unreasonably restrict or delay approval of a

proposed plan of operations. (Baker v. USDA, 928 F. Supp. 1513 (D.

Id. 1996))

Resolution’s Baseline Plan, as described in Section 1.1 of the

preliminary EA, is subject to the regulations found at 36 CFR part 228,

subpart A. These regulations apply to all functions, work, and activities

in connection with prospecting, exploration, development, mining, or



of a location for a potential tailings facility on NFS lands. Determining

the feasibility of a potential location for a tailings facility is considered

a use that is reasonably incident to mineral exploration and

development of a potential mine. Additionally, the proposed Plan

represents part of a logical sequence of activities, and has been found to

be reasonable for the stage proposed by Resolution (Forest Service

Handbook 2809.15, Minerals and Geology, Chapter 10). Resolution’s

Baseline Plan would provide baseline information on hydrologic,

geochemical, and geotechnical data from mining claims on NFS lands.

This information would be used to inform later separate actions and

proposals related to Resolution’s proposed General Plan of Operations.

As described in the EA, the Baseline Plan has independent utility from

the General Plan of Operations and that separate action would be

subject to a separate review and approval under NEPA and 36 CFR

Part 228, subpart A. Resolution is entitled to conduct operations that

are reasonably incidental to exploration and development of mineral

deposits on its unpatented mining claims pursuant to U.S. Mining


Table 2-58

Comment


Laws. Under regulations of the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture,

Resolution must conduct mining operations with the requirements

found at 36 CFR Part 228, subpart A and in accordance with a plan of

operations that has been approved by the Forest Service.

20 Further, even if the USFS could ignore its duties under

its multiple use and other mandates and assume that the

company had a right under the Mining Law (which as

noted herein is wrong), ~j rights do not attach to the

right-of-ways and other FLPMA approvals needed for

the roads. Roads, even those across public land related

to a mining operation, are not covered by statutory

rights under the Mining Law. Alanco Environmental

Resources Corp., 145 IBLA 289, 297

(1998)(“construction of a road, was subject not only to

authorization under 43 C.F .R. Subpart 3809 [BLM

mining regulations], but also to issuance of a right-of-

way under 43 C.F.R. Part 2800 [BLM FLPMA Title V

regulations].”). “[A] right-of-way must be obtained prior

to transportation ofwater across Federal lands for

mining.” Far West Exploration, Inc., 100 IBLA 306,

308 n. 4 (1988) citing Desert Survivors, 96 IBLA 193

(1987). See also; Wayne D. Klump, 130 IBLA 98, 100

(1995) (“Regardless ofhis right of access across the

public lands to his mining claims and of his prior water

rights, use of the public lands must be in compliance

with the requirements of the relevant statutes and

regulations [FLPMA Title V and ROW regulations].”).

Although these cases dealt with BLM lands, they apply

equally to Forest Service lands. As noted in Alanco,

ROWs for access roads are subject to FLPMA’s Title V

requirements. The leading treatise on federal natural

resources law confirms this rule: “Rightsof- way must

be explicitly applied for and granted; approvals of

mining plans or other operational plans do not implicitly

Section 1.3 of the preliminary EA describes the laws, regulations, and

ordnances that the Forest Service must comply with, or will use in their

decision making process. Travel, transportation, and road management

on the Tonto National Forest are governed by the Tonto National

Forest Management Plan and Title 36 CFR, Part 212. Section 3.10 of

the preliminary EA also describes travel management and public safety

impacts.


Table 2-59

Comment


confer a right-of-way.” Coggins and Glicksman,

PUBLIC NATURAL RESOURCES LAW, §15.21

(emphasis added). ...USFS mining regulations consider

roads associated with the Project part of the mineral

“operations,” 36 CFR §228.3, does not override these

holdings or somehow create statutory rights where none

exist. The court in Mineral Policy Center v. Norton, 292

F.Supp.2d, 30 (D.D.C. 2003) specifically rejected the

federal government’s argument that all mining-related

operations were exempt from FLPMA’s ROW

requirements. 292 F.Supp.2d at 49-51 (“[I]f there is no

valid claim and the claimant is doing more than

engaging in initial exploration activities on lands open

to location, the claimants’ activity is not explicitly

protected by the Mining Law.”). Id.at 50.

21 Overall, the USFS must apply the proper discretionary

and public interest review applicable to Title V and its

USFS implementing regulations. This permitting regime

governs the agency’s position regarding NEP A

alternatives and mitigation analysis, as well as the

fundamental errors in assuming that Resolution has a

statutory right to receive approval of these roads.

Operations not conducted on “valid and perfected

claims” must comply with all ofFLPMA’s requirements,

including Title V’s SUP/ROW requirements. Mineral

Policy Center v. Norton, 292 F.Supp.2d 30, 49-51

(“[I]fthere is no valid claim and the claimant is doing

more than engaging in initial exploration activities on

lands open to location, the claimants’ activity is not

explicitly protected by the Mining Law.”). ld. at 50.

On National Forest system lands reserved from public domain and open

to entry under the Mining Law, the Forest Service is not required to

inquire into claim validity before processing and approving proposed

plans of operations. In order to prospect, explore, and make a discovery

of a valuable mineral deposit or establish valid mining claims, the

operator has a right under the 1872 Mining Law to enter upon national

forests and to conduct upon those lands reasonable activities to

prospect and explore for mineral resources. Exercise of this right does

not even require the staking of a mining claim, a fact recognized in the

Forest Service locatable mineral regulations at 36 CFR 228.3(a), where

mineral operations are defined and it is clearly stated that the Forest

Service’s regulations apply to all functions, work, activities, and uses

reasonably incidental to all phases of mineral exploration and mining

under the 1872 Mining Law, whether located on or off mining claims.

The General Mining Law of 1872, the Multiple Use Mining Act of

1955, and the regulations at 36 CFR 228 Subpart A, provide a

framework for the decision and the FLPMA requirements for

evaluation and collection of fair market value are not applicable to this

project.


Table 2-60

Comment


In its 2001 rulemaking BLM adopted a similar policy to the Forest

Service current policy. See 43 CFR 3809.5, defining ‘operations’

subject to approval under that part to include “reasonably incidental

uses, whether on a mining claim or not”. This policy of approving all

‘reasonably incidental uses’ under one approval mechanism for

locatable mineral operations was discussed at length in a judicial

challenge to the rule. See Mineral Policy Center v Norton, 292

F.Supp.2d 30 (D. D. C., 2003). This court upheld BLM’s regulation.

However it remanded to the Department of Interior for the limited

purpose of considering whether fair market value should be required

for use of unclaimed lands. In subsequent rulemakings BLM confirmed

that the normal practice of industry is to conduct activities on claimed

lands. See 72 Fed. Reg. 8139 (February 23, 2007) and 73 Fed. Reg.

73789 (December 4, 2008) “None of the comments presented factual

scenarios in which such ancillary uses took place in association with

operations on unclaimed lands that amount to more than initial

exploration activities” 73 Fed. Reg at 73791. BLM further noted that

the “court concluded that the Mining Law authorizes operations,

including possession, occupancy, and mineral extraction activities,

without payment of fair market value for that use.” Id. BLM adopted an

interim final rule that did not require FLPMA ‘fair market value’ fees

for such ancillary uses. Id.; see also 43 C.F.R. 3800.6

The Forest Service regulations and policy is consistent with existing

BLM regulation and policy and with the provisions of FLPMA and the

Mining Laws. The Forest Service interpretation in its regulations

implements a longstanding policy of the Forest Service to efficiently

administer locatable mineral operations including their ancillary uses

whether or not they are on mining claims. As indicated in BLM’s

lengthy rulemakings and litigation, many initial activities might occur

before claims are located. The application of 36 CFR Part 228 to the

authorization of all reasonably incidental and ancillary uses of Forest

Service lands, whether on or off mining claims, is consistent with

applicable law.


Table 2-61

Comment


22 the USFS has a mandatory duty under Section 505(a) to

impose conditions that “will minimize damage to scenic

and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat and

otherwise protect the environment.” Id. §1765(a)

(emphasis added). The terms ofthis section do not limit

“damage” specifically to the land within the ROW

corridor. Rather, the repeated use of the expansive term

“the environment” indicates that the overall effects of

the SUP/ROW on cultural, environmental, scenic and

aesthetic values must be evaluated and these resources

protected. In addition, the oblig’ation to impose terms

and conditions that “protect Federal property and

economic interests” in Section 505(b) supports an

expansive reading that the USFS must impose

conditions that protect not only the 1and crossed by the

right-of-way, but all federal land affected by the

approval of the SUP/ROW.2 ...the discretionary

requirements in Section 505(b) require a USFS

determination as to what conditions are “necessary” to

protect federal property and economic interests, as well

as “otherwise protect[ing] the public interest in the lands

traversed by the right-of-way or adjacent thereto.”

(emphasis added). This means that the agency can only

approve the SUP/ROW if it “protects the public interest

in lands” not only upon which the roads would traverse,

but also lands and resources adjacent to and associated

with the SUP/ROW. Thus, in this case, the USFS can

only approve the SUP/ROWs if all aspects of the

Project, and the Main Mine itself, “protect the public

interest.” The agency has made no showing that this is

the case here.

Section 3.12 of the preliminary EA describes potential effects on visual

resources including any proposed mitigation measures to minimize

effects. Section 2.3 describes revisions to the proposed action that also

minimized potential effects on resources including visual resources.


Table 2-62

Comment


23 The USFS cannot issue a SUP/ROW that fails to

“protect the environment” as required by FLPMA,

including the environmental resource values outside the

immediate ROW corridor. “FLPMA itself does not

authorize the Supervisor’s consideration of the interests

of private facility owners as weighed against

environmental interests such as protection of fish and

wildlife habitat. FLPMA requires all land-use

authorizations to contain terms and conditions which

will protect resources and the environment.” Colorado

Trout Unlimited v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 320

F.Supp.2d 1090, 1108 (D. Colo. 2004)(emphasis in

original) appeal dismissed as moot, 441 F.3d 1214 (lOth

Cir. 2006). ...the agency must consider its duties under

FLPMA to protect public resources. “Federal law,

including the Federal Land Policy Management Act of

1976 (“FLMPA”) ‘specifically authorizes the Forest

Service to restrict such rights-of-way [granted by an

SUP] to protect fish and wildlife and maintain water

quality standards under federal law, . without any

requirement that the Forest Service defer to state water

law.’ County of Okanogan v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries

Serv .. 347 F.3d 1081,1086 (9th Cir.2003).” Sequoia

Forestkeeper v. U.S. Forest Service, 2010 WL 5059621,

*19 (E.D. Cal. 2010), amended on reconsideration, 2011

WL .902120 (E.D. Cal. 2011). The court also held that

the USFS failed to consider its SUP authorities during

the scoping process in violation ofNEPA: “The USPS’s

erroneous conclusion that it had no authority to

condition the SUP to require minimum bypass flows or

other rights-ofway restrictions led to its unreasonable

failure to consider the requests to do so in its scoping

period.” Sequoia Forestkeeper v. U.S. Forest Service,

2010 WL 5059621, *21. The fact that that case dealt

Section 2.3.6 of the preliminary EA includes the Applicant-proposed

environmental commitments. Additional mitigation measures proposed

to protect the environment are included in applicable resource sections

of Chapter 3 and also summarized in Section 2.5.


Table 2-63

Comment


with an SUP for a water conveyance, rather than a road,

is not relevant, as the same SUP/ROW requirements to

protect public resources apply equally in both situations.

24 The Department specifically noted that under FLPMA

Title V: “[A]s BLM has held, it is not private interests

but the public interest that must be served by the

issuance of a right-of-way.” 126 IBLA at 342, 1993 WL

417949 at *3 (emphasis added). The Forest Service

Manual also requires that the project be covered by the

ROW/SUP regime. Forest Service Manual 2730

provides direction regarding road rights of way. It states

the following regarding FLMP A rights of way: “Grant

all road rights-of-way under Title V of the Federal Land

Policy and Management Act with the exception of: 5.

Road constructed on valid mining claims or mineral

lease areas when the construction is authorized by an

approved operating plan (36 CFR part 228 and FSM 281

0).” Thus, regarding the roads in this case, the Manual

requires that a FLPMA Title V authorization is required

for roads “except’ for Roads constructed on valid

mining claims.” Thus, even ifthe agency’s legal position

that authorization of roads and related facilities is

considered a “right” under the Mining Law and

approved via the Part 228 regulations was correct -

which as shown herein it is not - this is true only for

such facilities/uses “on valid mining claims.’

Section 1.5.2 of the preliminary EA discusses the Forest Service

decision framework in relation to the proposed Baseline Plan of

Operations.

25 The record contains no evidence whatsoever that the

lands to be crossed by the roads and technical facilities

are covered by “valid mining claims.” Under the Mining

Law, in order to be valid, mining claims must contain

the “discovery of a valuable mineral deposit.” 30 U.S.C.

§ 22. Under the “marketability” test, it must be shown

that the mineral can be “extracted, removed and

marketed at a profit.” United States v. Coleman, 390




plans of operations. The Forest Service has the discretion to challenge

claim validity at any time before patent of the claim. Forest Service

Manual, § 2814.11. However it is not required to review claim validity

to review and approve a plan of operations for a mine on lands open to

mineral entry. Western Shoshone Defense Project, 160 IBLA 32, 56


Table 2-64

Comment


U.S. 599, 600 (1968). According to the “prudent-

person” test, “the discovered deposits must be of such a

character that a person of ordinary prudence would be

justified in the further expenditure of his labors and

means, with a reasonable prospect of success, in

developing a valuable mine.” Id. at 602. The Supreme

Court has held that profitability is “an important

consideration in applying the prudent-man test and the

marketability test,” and noted that” ... the prudent-man

test and the marketability test are not distinct standards,

but are complementary in that the latter is a refinement

of the former.” I d. at 602-603.

(August 21, 2003) (BLM not required to review mining claim validity

before approving mining plan of operations.)

The Forest Service regulations and policy are consistent with existing

Department of Interior policy on determination of mining claim

validity. See M- 37012, Legal Requirements for Determining Mining

Claim Validity Before Approving A Mining Plan of Operations

(November 14, 2005); Great Basin Resource Watch and Western

Shoshone Defense Project, 182 IBLA 55 (2012).

26 In order to successfully defend rights to occupy and use

a claim for prospecting and mining, a claimant must

meet the requirements as specified or implied by the

mining laws, in addition to the rules and regulations of

the USFS. These require a claimant to: ... 2. Discover a

valuable mineral deposit. ... (and) 7. Be prepared to

show evidence of mineral discovery. FSM 2813.2. “A

claim unsupported by a discovery of a valuable mineral

deposit is invalid from the time of location, and the only

rights the claimant has are those belonging to anyone to

enter and prospect on National Forest lands.” FSM

§2811.5.

The Forest Service is not required to inquire into claim validity before

processing and approving proposed plans of operations. Consistent

with Forest Service Manual 2800, Minerals and Geology, Chapter

2810, Section 2817.23, approval of an operating plan does not

constitute now or in the future recognition or certification of the

validity of any mining claim to which it may relate or to the mineral

character of the land on which it lies. Forest Service regulations require

that all locatable mineral operations must be conducted to minimize,

prevent or mitigate adverse environmental impacts to surface resources.

The purpose of this project is to collect hydrological, geochemical and

geotechnical data in order to provide baseline information on these

aspects of the environment over an area being considered for a potential

tailings storage site; therefore, the proposed Plan is considered to be

reasonably incident to mining.

27 In addition to the lack of any evidence that the claims to

be crossed by the roads are valid under the Mining Law,

it is almost certain the Project’s activities are on lands

far from the mineralized zone and do not contain the

requisite valuable mineral deposit. Indeed, it is likely

that these lands contain common varieties of rock that

are not even considered locatable minerals under federal

mining law.

In order to prospect, explore, and make a discovery of a valuable

mineral deposit or establish valid mining claims, the operator has a

right under the 1872 Mining Law to enter upon national forests and to

conduct upon those lands reasonable activities to prospect and explore

for mineral resources. Exercise of this right does not even require the

staking of a mining claim, a fact recognized in the Forest Service

locatable mineral regulations at 36 CFR 228.3(a), where mineral

operations are defined and it is clearly stated that the Forest Service’s


Table 2-65

Comment


regulations apply to all functions, work, activities, and uses reasonably

incidental to all phases of mineral exploration and mining under the

1872 Mining Law, whether located on or off mining claims.

28 Forest Service rules (Region 3’s FSM 2500, Chapter

2540 Water Use and Development) (Attachment J) also

state that special use authorization is necessary for this

project as it is a consumptive water use on the National

Forest. Since 1872 General Mining Law does not apply

here, a special use permit would be required and would

also require an examination of the water developments

in the project and consideration of their potential to

impact groundwater, streams, springs, seeps and

associated riparian and aquatic ecosystems. ...

Accordingly, the agency’s decision to review and

approve these facilities solely through the Part 228 PoO

process violates federal law. Any review and regulation

ofthe proposed activities must occur under the legally-

correct permitting regime.

As described in Section 2.3 of the preliminary EA, water sources for

the proposed Baseline activities would be provided by privately held

water suppliers. Section 3.3 evaluates water resources including surface

and ground water sources.

29 the scoping letter states that: “Resolution is entitled to

conduct operations that are reasonably incidental to

exploration and development of mineral deposits on its

unpatented mining claims pursuant to U.S. Mining

Laws.” Scoping letter at 1. The agency further states,

that due to this alleged “entitlement,” the agency must

approve the Project and cannot choose the no action

alternative: “[D]ue to the statutory rights afforded by the

U.S. Mining Laws; the Forest Service cannot select the

No Action alternative as a preferred alternative.”

Scoping letter at 4. “The statutory right of Resolution to

mine mineral resources on federally administered lands

is recognized in the General Mining Law of1872.” ld.

Consistent with 36 CFR part 228 subpart A, and Forest Service

Handbook 2809.15, Minerals and Geology, Chapter 10, reasonably

incident is defined as “prospecting, mining, or processing operations

and uses reasonably incident thereto” (30 U.S.C. 612). It means

reasonable and necessary uses of National Forest System lands for

purposes that reflect sound practices that avoid or minimize adverse

environmental impacts and are required for the various stages of

mineral operations.

30 Yet this position violates the FLPMA and the 1872

Mining Law, by not requiring Resolution to pay Fair

Market Value (FMV) for the use of public lands not

The General Mining Law of 1872, the Multiple Use Mining Act of

1955, and the regulations at 36 CFR 228 Subpart A provide a

framework for the decision and the FLPMA requirements for


Table 2-66

Comment


covered by valid mining claims, based on the lack of

any evidence that the vast majority of the mining claims

(or indeed any claims at all) at the Project site contain

locatable minerals and the requisite discovery of a ~~

valuable mineral deposit. Similarly, the agency’s

position also violates provisions ofFLPMA and the

Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act, NFMA, 1897

Organic Act, and other laws mandating that the agencies

manage, or at least consider managing, these lands for

non-mineral uses - something which the USFS refuses

to do or consider in this case.

evaluation and collection of fair market value are not applicable to this

project. Multiple-use management of the National Forest System lands

within the proposed project area will continue during implementation

of Resolution’s Baseline plan. Please see responses to submission letter

number 155, comments 232 and 226.

31 The scoping letter is based on the overriding assumption

that Resolution has statutory rights to use all of the

public lands at the site under the 1872 Mining Law.

However, where Project lands have not been verified to

contain, or do not contain, such rights, the USFS’ s

more discretionary multiple-use authorities apply. See

Mineral Policy Center v. Norton, 292 F.Supp.2d 30, 46-

51 (D.D.C. 2003) (although that case dealt with Interior

Department lands, the same analysis applies to USFS

lands).








mineral operations.

32 The Mineral Policy Center court specifically recognized

the federal government’s duty to apply its broader,

multiple use authority when mineral-related operations

are proposed on lands not subject to valid and perfected

claims: While a claimant can explore for valuable

mineral deposits before perfecting a valid mining claim,

without such a claim, she has no property rights against

the United States (although she may establish rights

against other potential claimants), and her use of the

land may be circumscribed beyond the UUD standard

because it is not explicitly protected by the Mining Law.

292 F.Supp.2d at 47 (emphasis added). Although the

“UUD standard” was at issue in that case (BLM’s duty








mineral operations.


Table 2-67

Comment


to “prevent unnecessary or undue degradation” under

FLPMA), the holding that development “rights” under

the mining laws only apply to lands covered by valid

claims applies equally to the USFS and BLM. The court

was equally clear as to what was required to “perfect” a

mining claim: The Mining Law gives individuals the

right to explore for mineral resources on lands that are

“free and open” in advance of having made a

“discovery” or perfected a valid mining claim. United

States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84, 86, 105 S.Ct. 1785, 85

L.Ed.2d 64 (1985). The Mining Law provides, however,

that a mining claim cannot be perfected “until the

discovery of the vein or lode.” 30 U.S.C. § 23.

33 in its review of the Project, the USFS erroneously

believes that it does not have this “wide discretion” to

“approve or disapprove” any part of the PoO. The fact

that Resolution proposes to use mining claims for

ancillary operations does not mean automatically, that

each mining claim is invalid. The Mining Lav does not

prohibit any and all uses of a mining claim for milling

or processing activities. Indeed, a 1955 enactment of

Congress specifically authorizes the use of mining

claims for prospecting mining or pr cessing operations

and uses reasonably incident thereto.” Surface

Resources Act of 1955, 30 U.S.C. § 601,603, 611-615.3

However, the 1955 Act did not create any surface use

rights independent of the underlying mining clmm. This

is because the overall intent ofthe 1955 Act was to limit,

not expand, mining claimants’ rights. See generally

Clayton J. Parr & Dale A. Kimball, “Acquisition ofNon-

Mineral Land for Mine Related Purposes,” 23 Rocky

Mtn. Min. L. Inst. 595,635-36 (1977). The 1955 Act

must therefore be read as not altering the principle that

the right of a mining claimant to use the surface of a








mineral operations.


Table 2-68

Comment


mining claim is derived from the right to mine the

discovered mineral deposit. In other words, although the

1955 Act authorizes “reasonably incident” uses,

discovery is still required on each claim in order to

establish rights against the United State;j Consequently

{if a mining claim is proposed to be used solely for

activities that are “reasonably incident” to extracting

minerals from other lands, it must be supported by the

requisite discovey. This is especially true because

federal courts have long and consistently held that a

mining claimant’s right to use an unpatented mining

claim is limited to purposes connected with the removal

of minerals from that claim, and not for other purposes.

See, e.g., Teller v. United States, 113 F. 273 (8th Cir.

1901); United States v. Rizzinelli, 182 F. 675 (D. Idaho

19l.0).

34 The leading mining industry treatise stated: Several

early cases recognized the right of an operator to occupy

and use unoccupied public domain in connection with

mining operations. However, it is doubtful that such

rights continue to exist in light of the comprehensive

land use procedures adopted in the Federal Land Policy

and Management Act of 1976. When ground is held by a

mining claim that is not valid, an operator’s rights are

limited to those conferred under the doctrine of pedis

possesio.

It is not common practice, nor is it Forest Service policy to challenge

mining claim validity, except when (a) proposed operations are within

an area withdrawn from mineral entry; (b) when a patent application is

filed; and (c) when the agency deems that the proposed uses are not

reasonably incidental to mineral exploration. For operations proposed

in accordance with Forest Service regulations, and where the above

situations do not exist, conducting a validity exam is not consistent

with Forest Service policy.

35 USFS cannot in this case determine that Resolution is

“entitled” under the Mining Law to use its claims for

roads and scientific studies, etc., when there is no

evidence in the record that those claims are supported by

any rights under the Mining Law against the United

States.








mineral operations.


Table 2-69

Comment


36 A proper application ofUSFS’s multiple use, public

interest, and sustained yield mandates to those areas not

covered by valid claims would result in a very different

Project review, alternatives, and level of protection for

public land resources and values, as well as reducing or

eliminating the adverse impacts to the use of these lands

by members of the public. Regarding the requirement

for the federal government to obtain FMV [fair market

value]for the use of lands not covered by valid claims,

under FLPMA, “the United States [must] receive fair

market value of the use of the public lands and their

resources unless otherwise provided for by statute.” 43

U.S.C. §1701(a)(9). The Mineral Policy Center court

held that unless the lands were covered by valid claims

(i.e. the situation “otherwise provided for by statute” in§

01(a)(9)), the agencies must comply with their FMV

duty.

It is not common practice, nor is it Forest Service policy to challenge

mining claim validity, except when (a) proposed operations are within

an area withdrawn from mineral entry; (b) when a patent application is

filed; and (c) when the agency deems that the proposed uses are not

reasonably incidental to mineral exploration. For operations proposed

in accordance with Forest Service regulations, and where the above

situations do not exist, conducting a validity exam is not consistent

with Forest Service policy. The activities proposed in Resolution’s

Baseline Plan are considered to be reasonably incidental to mineral

exploration as per 36 CFR part 228, subpart A, and as such they can be

authorized regardless of whether they are on or off mining claims.

37 USFS has failed to even consider the application of its

multiple use authority, and related FMV requirements as

mandated by Mineral Policy Center- a violation

ofFLPMA, the Mining Law, and their multiple-use

mandates, as well as being an arbitrary and capricious

decision under the Administrative Procedure Act (AP

A). As noted above,ftis likely that these lands contain

common varieties of rock that are not even considered

locatable minerals under federal mining law, which is a

prerequisite for claim validity. See 30 U.S.C. § 22 (only

“valuable mineral deposits” are covered by the Mining

Law); 30 U.S.C. § 611 (“common varieties” of minerals

are not locatable under the Mining Law).

Section 1.4 of the preliminary EA contains a description of the purpose

and need for the proposed Baseline activities. At this time a decision

regarding the proposed Baseline activities has not been made and the

preliminary EA is part of the Forest Service decision process as

described in Section 1.5.2.

38 As stated in the USFS Minerals Manual: “In order to

successfully defend rights to occupy and use a claim for

prospecting and mining, a claimant must meet the

requirements as specified or implied by the mining laws,

Resolution Copper Mining, LLC has proposed to conduct baseline data

gathering activities on the Tonto National Forest in their proposed

Baseline Plan. It is not Forest Service policy to inquire as to the mineral

composition of the subsurface. Consistent with Forest Service Manual


Table 2-70

Comment


in addition to the rules and regulations of the USFS.

These require a claimant to: ... 2. Discover a valuable

mineral deposit .... (and) 7. Be prepared to show

evidence of mineral discovery.” FSM 2813.2 (emphasis

added). Under the Mining Law, in order to be valid,

mining claims must contain the “discovery of a valuable

mineral deposit.” 30 U.S.C. § 22. See herein discussion

of the test for valid claims. According to the USFS

Minerals Manual: “A claim unsupported by a discovery

of a valuable mineral deposit is invalid from the time of

location, and the only rights the claimant has are those

belonging to anyone to enter and prospect on National

Forest lands.” FSM §2811.5. The term “valid claim”

often is used in a loose and incorrect sense to indicate

only that the ritualistic requirements of posting of

notice, monumentation, discovery work, recording,

annual assessment work, payment of taxes, and so forth,

have been met. This overlooks the basic requirement

that the claimant must discover a valuable mineral

deposit. Generally, a valid claim is a claim that may be

patented.

2800, Chapter 2810 Mining Claims, Section 2811.5, a mining claim

may lack the elements of validity and be invalid in fact, but it must be

recognized as a claim until it has been finally declared invalid by the

Department of Interior or Federal courts.

39 the USFS should inquire as to whether the Project lands

contain “common varieties” or “valuable mineral

deposits.” The USFS recognizes that a valid claim under

the Mining Law cannot be made for common variety

minerals. “The 1955 Multiple-Use Mining Act (69 Stat.

367; 30 U.S.C. 601, 603, 611-615) amended the United

States mining laws in several respects. The act provides

that common varieties of mineral materials shall not be

deemed valuable mineral deposits for purposes of

establishing a mining claim.” FSM §2812. Alhough a

complete mineral report and claim validity verification

is not required for every single proposal, the agency

must have evidence that the claims meet the legal

Resolution Copper Mining, LLC has proposed to conduct baseline data

gathering activities on the Tonto National Forest in their proposed

Baseline Plan. It is not Forest Service policy to inquire as to the mineral

composition of the subsurface. Consistent with Forest Service Manual

2800, Chapter 2810 Mining Claims, Section 2811.5, a mining claim

may lack the elements of validity and be invalid in fact, but it must be

recognized as a claim until it has been finally declared invalid by the

Department of Interior or Federal courts.


Table 2-71

Comment


prerequisites to establish rights under the Mining Law.

At a minimum, evidence needs to be in the record

supporting val.id rights under the mining law if the

agency revjews and approves land uses tmder an

assumed right under the Mining Law- rights that accrue

on1y if based on valid claims as shown by the legal

decisions noted herein.

40 The Project proposes an extensive network of roads,

drilling sites, and support facilities across a large area.

These activities will adversely impact a number of

critical public resources such as air, water (surface and

ground, quantity and quality), wildlife, recreation

visual/scenic, cultural/religious historical, etc. As noted

above, each of these potential impacts must be fully

reviewed, not just in the immediate location of the

impact, but on a regional scale. In addition, the agency

must prepare for public review a detailed analysis of the

current baseline conditions for all potentially affected

resources, both at the immediate site locations, but also

nearby and regionally (e.g., baseline current conditions

of Queen Creek and any and all impacts to the nearby

Boyce Thompson Arboretum).

The affected environment, or baseline conditions for Baseline

activities, was evaluated for Water Resources, Soil Resources,

Vegetation Communities and Fire Regimes, Invasive Species, Wildlife

and Special Status Species, Range, Cultural Resources, Travel

Management and Public Safety, Recreation, Visual Resources, Air

Quality, Climate Change, and Noise in Chapter 3 of the preliminary

EA.

41 The impacts from this project to the towns of Superior

and Queen Creek must also be fully reviewed.

The baseline conditions evaluated in the preliminary EA for Baseline

activities, include: Water Resources, Soil Resources, Vegetation

Communities and Fire Regimes, Invasive Species, Wildlife and Special

Status Species, Range, Cultural Resources, Travel Management and

Public Safety, Recreation, Visual Resources, Air Quality, Climate

Change, and Noise. Please refer to Chapter 3 to review the analysis.

42 The USFS is required to “describe the environment of

the areas to be affected or created by the alternatives

under consideration.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.15. The

establishment ofthe baseline conditions ofthe affected

environment is a fundamental requirement ofthe NEPA

process: “NEP A clearly requires that consideration of

Chapter 3 of the preliminary EA includes a description of the affected

environment that is consistent with 40 CFR 1502.15. The affected

environment descriptions establish the baseline for the environmental

consequences analysis. Chapter 3 of the preliminary EA includes a

description of the environmental consequences as well.


Table 2-72

Comment


environmental impacts of proposed projects take place

before [a final decision] is made.” LaFlamme v. FERC,

842 F.2d 1063, 1071 (9th Cir.1988) (emphasis in

original). Once a project begins, the “pre-project

environment” becomes a thing of the past, thereby

making evaluation of the project’s effect on pre-project

resources impossible. Id. Without establishing the

baseline conditions which exist in the vicinity ... before

[the project] begins, there is simply no way to determine

what effect the proposed [project] will have on the

environment and, consequently, no way to comply with

NEPA.

43 Such baseline information and analysis must be part of

the EA/EIS and be subject to public review and

comment under NEP A. The lack of an adequate

baseline analysis fatally flaws an EA or EIS. “[O]nce a

project begins, the pre-project environment becomes a

thing ofthe past and evaluation of the project’s effect

becomes simply impossible.” Northern Plains v. Surf.

Transp. Brd., 668 F.3d 1067, 1083 (9th Cir. 2011).

“[W]ithout [baseline] data, an agency cannot carefully

consider information about significant environment

impacts. Thus, the agency fail[s] to consider an

important aspect of the problem, resulting in an arbitrary

and capricious decision.” Id. at lO85.






44 In Idaho Conservation League, 2012 WL 3758161 (D.

Idaho 2012), the Idaho federal court concluded that the

Forest Service acted arbitrarily and capriciously by

authorizing exploratory hardrock mineral drilling

without fully analyzing the baseline groundwater and

hydrology. Id. at * 17. Such analysis should include “a

baseline hydrogeologic study to examine the existing

density and extent of bedrock fractures, the hydraulic

conductivity of the local geologic formations, and

The purpose of this project is to collect baseline hydrological,

geochemical, and geotechnical data on these aspects of the environment

on an area that may be considered for a potential tailings storage site

(Section 1.4).


Table 2-73

Comment


[measures ofJ the local groundwater levels to estimate

groundwater flow directions.” Idaho Conservation

League, 2012 WL 3 7 5 8161, at * 16. See also

Shoshone- Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall Reservation v.

U.S. Dept. oflnterior, 2011 WL 1743656, at *10 (D.

Idaho 2011).

45 prior to considering or approving any exploration, the

Forest Service must first obtain this required baseline

information and subject the information and analysis to

public review and comment in a Draft EA or EIS. I

“NEP A requires that the agency provide the data on

which it bases its environmental analysis. Such analyses

must occur before the proposed action is approved, not

afterward.” Northern Plains, 668 F.3d at 1083 (internal

citations omitted) (concluding that an agency’s “plans to

conduct surveys and studies as part of its post-approval

mitigation measures,” in the absence of baseline data,

indicate failure to take the requisite “hard look” at

environmental impacts). This requirement applies not

only to ground and surface waters, but any potentially

affected resource such as air quality, recreation, soils,

cultural/historical, wildlife, etc.






46 The Project poses potentially significant risks to wildlife

(including indicator, sensitive, II threatened and

endangered species) and wildlife habitat, groundwater

and surface water resources, cultural/historical, air

quality, recreation, and other resources. It should be

noted that, without the required baseline analysis, it is

impossible to fully ascertain the level of threats to public

land resources. Because of the potentially significant

impacts, an EIS is required.

The preliminary EA addresses effects to Wildlife and Special Status

Species (Section 3.7), Water Resources (Section 3.3), Cultural

Resources (Section 3.9), Air Quality ( Section 3.13), Recreation

(section 3.11), and several other resources for Baseline activities. If,

after preparation and review of the EA, the Forest Service determines

there are no significant impacts from the Baseline activities, then they

would prepare a Finding of No Signification Impact (FONSI), or they

may determine an EIS is required if there are significant impacts

identified.


Table 2-74

Comment


47 due to the agency’s decision not to review all

cumulative impacts or connected actions, the agency’s

decision to not prepare an EIS (i.e., proposed FONSI)

violates NEP A, as the lack of an adequate connected

action/cumulative actions/impacts analysis necessarily

renders any FONSI inadequate and arbitrary and

capricious.

Section 3.2 of the preliminary EA contains a discussion of the

cumulative impact analysis methodology used to evaluate potential

effects on resources.

48 in this case, the agency’s admitted failure to fully review

all direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, and

connected and cumulative actions, will necessarily

render the EA deficient. As such, the USPS cannot issue

a FONSI. Without the required review of baseline

information, and the potential direct, indirect, and

cumulative impacts ofthe Project, any decision not to

prepare an EIS would be without sufficient evidentiary

support.

Chapter 3 of the preliminary EA describes the potential direct, indirect,

and cumulative impacts on resources.

49 Under NEP A, the agency must have an adequate

mitigation plan to minimize or eliminate all potential

project impacts. NEPA requires the agency to: (1)

“include appropriate mitigation measures not already

included in the proposed action or alternatives,” 40 CFR

§ 1502.14(f); and (2) “include discussions of: ... Means

to mitigate adverse environmental impacts (if not

already covered under 1502.14(±)).” 40 CFR §

1502.16(h). NEPA regulations define “mitigation” as a

way to avoid, minimize, rectify, or compensate for the

impact of a potentially harmful action. 40 C.F.R. § §

1508.20( a)-( e). “[O]mission of a reasonably complete

discussion of possible mitigation measures would

undermine the ‘action-forcing’ function ofNEP A.

Without such a discussion, neither the agency nor other

interested groups and individuals can properly evaluate

the severity of the adverse effects.” Robertson v.

Methow Valley Citizens Cow1ciJ, 490 U.S. 332, 353

Chapter 3 of the preliminary EA includes additional mitigation

developed to minimize potential impacts from the proposed Baseline

activities. Section 2.3.6 describes the environmental commitments

proposed by Resolution, and Section 2.5 provides a summary of the

mitigation measures developed in Chapter 3.


Table 2-75

Comment


(1989). NEPA requires that the agency discuss

mitigation measures, with “sufficient detail to ensure

that environmental consequences have been fairly

evaluated.” Methow Valley, 490 U.S. at 352, 109 S.Ct.

1835.

50 Even if an EA leads to a FONSI, it is essential for the

agency to consider all reasonable alternatives to the

proposed action.

Please refer to Section 2.4 of the preliminary EA (Alternatives

Considered but Eliminated) for a description of a range of reasonable

alternatives that were considered; however, they were not carried

forward in the EA for further analysis.

51 the Draft EA or EIS must consider, at a minimum, the

following reasonable alternatives: Approval of only

activities on current existing roads.

Approval of only activities on current existing roads was not reviewed

as an alternative to the Proposed Action because it would not meet the

purpose of and need for Resolution’s Baseline activities. Please refer to

Section 2.4 of the preliminary EA for other alternatives to the Proposed

Action that were considered.


following reasonable alternatives: Access to activities

not on existing roads should be conducted via

helicopter.

Access to activities not on existing roads by helicopter was considered

as an alternative to the Proposed Action. Please refer to Section 2.4 of

the preliminary EA for a description of this alternative and the

reason(s) it was not carried forward in the EA for further analysis.


following reasonable alternatives: Reduction in the

amount, scope, and impact of each activity or group of

activity.



Period (Section 2.3 preliminary EA), which would serve to reduce

impacts to environmental resources.


following reasonable alternatives: Timing restrictions to

protect wildlife, recreation, and other public resources;



alternatives that were considered. Also refer to Sections 2.3.5, 2.3.6,

and 2.5 for a description of reclamation, applicant-proposed

environmental protection measures, and mitigation measures that

would reduce the impact to wildlife, recreation and other public

resources.


Table 2-76

Comment



following reasonable alternatives: Avoidance of any

impact to recreational users of the Arizona Trail (visual,

scenic, noise, etc.).



alternatives that were considered. Also refer to Sections 2.3.5, 2.3.6,

and 2.5 for a description of reclamation, applicant-proposed

environmental protection measures, and mitigation measures that

would reduce or avoid the impact to recreation users of the Arizona

Trail. Also refer to Sections 3.12 and 3.15 for a discussion of the

potential visual and noise impacts from the Baseline activities.


following reasonable alternatives: Avoidance of cultural

and historic areas.

Please refer to Section 3.9 (Cultural Resources) of the preliminary EA.

All known cultural resources would be avoided under the Proposed

Action.


following reasonable alternatives: Review of Project

under the correct legal regime as noted above, with

mitigations to protect the public interest from adverse

impacts.

With regards to 40 CFR part 1508.9(b), the preliminary EA includes a

discussion of the following: project need (Section 1.4); alternatives to

the Proposed Action (Sections 2.2, 2.3); environmental impacts of the

Proposed Action and alternatives (Chapter 3); listing of agencies and

persons consulted (Chapter 4).


following reasonable alternatives: Controls to prevent

adverse impacts from future mine dumping (e.g.,

prevention of possibility that project drill holes would

be a conduit for leakage/pollution from eventual tailings

disposition.

Please refer to Sections 2.3.5, 2.3.6, and 2.5 of the preliminary EA for a

description of reclamation, applicant-proposed environmental

protection measures, and mitigation measures that would reduce or

avoid the impact to resources. And refer to Section 2.3 for a description

of the Proposed Action including reclamation.


following reasonable alternatives: reviewing the Project

along with the Main Mine in one EIS.








a separate review under NEPA and 36 CFR part 228A. Section 1.5.1 of

the preliminary EA evaluates connected actions including the potential

development of the deep underground copper ore body and Section 2.4

discusses other reasonable alternatives considered.


Table 2-77

Comment



following reasonable alternatives: Examining the use of

a cut and fill method of mining. This method would

drastically reduce the amount of tailings that would be

generated thereby changing entirely the size and

composition for a possible tailings facility as a result of

this action.







following reasonable alternatives: An examination of

other tailings locations such as tailings on State Trust

lands near Florence Junction that would eliminate the

need for this study.








a separate review under NEPA and 36 CFR part 228A.

62 In addition to ensuring compliance with all applicable

environmental standards (which has not been shown

here due to the inadequate NEP A compliance), the

USFS has a mandatory duty to require “all practicable

measures to maintain and protect fisheries and wildlife

habitat which may be affected by the operations” under

36 CFR § 228.8(e)). See Rock Creek Alliance v. Forest

Service, 703 F.Supp.2d 1152, 1170 (D. Montana 201 0)

(Forest Service violated Organic Act and 228

regulations by failing to protect water quality and

fisheries in approving mining PoO). “Under the Organic

Act the Forest Service must minimize adverse

environmental impacts where feasible and must require

[the operator] to take all practicable measures to

maintain and protect fisheries and wildlife habitat.” I d.

at 1170. This duty applies to all wildlife, not just

indicator, sensitive, threatened, and endangered species.

Importantly, a simple and generalized reduction of

impacts does not equate to the strict requirements for

Refer to Sections 2.3.5, 2.3.6, and 2.5 of the preliminary EA for a

description of measures that would reduce or avoid impacts to

resources. Additionally, avoidance, minimization and mitigation

measures are discussed in the analysis of resources in Chapter 3.


Table 2-78

Comment


minimization of impacts and protection of resources.

The Forest Service’s duty to minimize impacts is not

met simply by somewhat reducing those impacts. Trout

Unlimited v. U.S. Dep’t. of Agriculture, 320 F.Supp.2d

1090, 1110 (D. Colo. 2004). In interpreting the Federal

Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA)’s duty on

the agency to “minimize damage to ... fish and wildlife

habitat and otherwise protect the environment,” 43

U.S.C. § 1765(a), the court specifically stated the

agency’s finding that mitigation measures would

“reasonably protect” fisheries and habitat failed to meet

its duty to “minimize” impacts. Id.

63 The agency must demonstrate that all feasible means

have been required to minimize all adverse impacts to

all potentially affected resources.

Refer to Sections 2.3.5, 2.3.6, and 2.5 of the preliminary EA for a

description of measures that would reduce or avoid impacts to

resources. Additionally, avoidance, minimization and mitigation

measures are discussed in the analysis of resources in Chapter 3.

64 in order to minimize all adverse impacts, the agency

must, among other restrictions to protect wildlife and the

environment, limit project activities to existing roads,

etc.(assuming that the Project was reviewed and

approved under the proper legal regime, which the

Scoping letter does not do). Also, as noted herein, the

agency must fully consider such limitations as

reasonable alternative( s) under NEPA.

The Forest Service, in compliance with 36 CFR part 228.1, is required

to minimize environmental effects of proposed actions whenever

possible. As a result of internal and external scoping comments

received on the proposed Plan, Resolution took into consideration

requests to minimize effects to environmental resources by reducing

the number of drill sites; reducing the use of existing Forest System

roads; and reducing the number of proposed previously disturbed areas

to be used as temporary access roads. The Purpose and Need of the

proposed Plan is to collect hydrological, geochemical, and geotechnical

data to provide baseline information of these elements of the

environment over an area being considered for a potential tailings

storage site (Section 1.4 preliminary EA). Reducing the number of drill

sites was found to not meet the purpose and need. Reasonable

alternatives which were determined to meet the Purpose and Need were

evaluated in the pre-decisional EA (Chapter 2).


Table 2-79

Comment


65 water quality must be protected. For example, pursuant

to the Clean Water Act, the USFS must require

Resolution to obtain Arizona Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (AZPDES) permit coverage for the

sediment and other pollutants discharged from the road

culverts and other water management structures.


quality, are discussed in Section 3.3 of the preliminary EA. Applicant-

proposed environmental protection measures and mitigation measures

are described in Sections 2.3.6 and 2.5.

66 One potential serious issue regards the intended use of

these lands by Resolution for tailings dumps, especially

the immediate areas of the drill holes created by the

Project. Although the . company would have to meet

basic state drill/well hole closure requirements, these

requirements do not account for the fact that millions of

tons of tailings could be placed directly on the

holes/wells. This could result in the serious condition of

these holes/wells becoming conduits for

leakage/seepage of contaminants from the tailings. The

USFS must ensure against this possibility -more than

simply referring to Arizona’s generalized well/drill

closure requirements.





tailings storage site (Section 1.4). The Proposed Action, including

reclamation and applicant-proposed environmental protection

measures, is described in Section 2.3 of the preliminary EA. Effects

from the Baseline activities to Water Resources are discussed in

Section 3.3.

67 Compliance with the NFMA is also required. The

NFMA requires that all site-specific actions 1 authorized

by the USFS be consistent with Forest Plan tandards and

guidelines. 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1604(i). “Pursuant to the

NFMA, the Forest Service must demo.nstmte that a site-

specific project would be consistent with the land

resource management plan of the entire forest.”

Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. U.S. Forest Service,

137 F.3d 1372, 1377 (9111 Cir.1998). ... USFS

authorization of mining and mineral exploration must

comply with all Forest Plan and NFMA

requirements.rsee Hells Canyon Preservation Council v.

Haines 2006 WL 2252554 *7- * 1 0 (D. Oregon 2006)

(approval of mining op ration violated Forest Plan

minerals management standards); Rock Creek Alliance

Chapter 3 of the preliminary EA includes the relevant Tonto National

Forest management direction for each of the resources evaluated.

Dependent upon the determination of effect to resources, a project-

specific plan amendment may be necessary in order to maintain

consistency between the proposed Baseline activities and the Forest

Plan.


Table 2-80

Comment


v. U.S. Forest Service, 703 F.Supp.2d 1152, 1187, n. 23

(D. Mont. 2010)(same). Thus,at a minimum, all

standards in the Forest Plan and NFMA requirements

must be met. There is no “mining exemption” from any

of these standards.

68 NEP A requires that the USFS fully disclose the

Project’s impacts on all potentially affected threatened

and endangered species and their designated critical

habitats. See 40 C.F.R. § 71 c. , 1508.27(b )(9). Impacts

to threatened or endangered species short of ‘jeopardy”

or the “destruction or adverse modification of critical

habitat” (the standard used under Section 7 of the ESA,

16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2)) may still be significant and

must be examined under NEPA. This includes engaging

in the ESA Section 7 consultation process with the U. S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).


Wildlife and Special Status Species.

69 4 4 The Tonto National Forest and the San Carlos

Apache Tribe are jointly conducting an ethnographic

survey of the entire Oak Flat area potentially impacted

by Resolution Copper’s mine plans included this project

area. The survey should be allowed to run is course

before scoping moves ahead.

It is anticipated that the “Ethnographic/Ethnohistoric Study of the

Superior Area, Arizona” (Study) will be completed prior to a final

decision being reached on the Baseline Plan. The Forest Service will

consider the findings of the Study, in conjunction with Tribal

comments, which come out of government to government consultation

in the final decision on the Baseline Plan.

70 If an undertaking is the type that “may affect” an

eligible site, the agency must make a reasonable and

good faith effort to seek information from consulting

parties, other members of the public, and Native

American tribes to identify historic properties in the area

of potential effect. See 36 CFR § 800.4(d)(2). See also

Pueblo of Sandia, 50 F.3d at 859-863 (agency failed to

make reasonable and good faith effort to identify

historic properties). Consultation “must be initiated

early in the undertaking’s planning, so that a broad

range of alternatives may be considered during the

Section 3.9 of the preliminary EA describes the potential effects on

cultural resources including historic resources. Government to

government consultation in accordance with the National Historic

Preservation Act was initiated shortly after the Baseline Plan was

determined to be administratively complete, approximately May 2014.

Government to government consultation is in progress and is ongoing

until the Forest Supervisor makes a decision. Tribal consultation is

ongoing and will conclude for this action when a final decision

regarding Resolution’s Baseline Plan is reached.


Table 2-81

Comment


planning process for the undertaking.” Pit River Tribe v.

U.S. Forest Service, 469 F.3d 768, 787 (91 Cir. 2006).

71 The NHPA also requires that federal agencies consult

with any “Indian tribe ... that attaches religious and

cultural significance’ to the sites. 16 U.S.C. §

470(a)(d)(6)(B). Consultation must provide the tribe “a

reasonable opportunity to identify its concerns about

historic properties, advise on the identification and

evaluation of historic properties, including those of

traditional religious and cultural importance, articulate

its views on the undertaking’s effects on such properties,

and participate in the resolution of adverse effects.” 36

CFR § 800.2(c)(2)(ii). “The agency official shall ensure

that the section 106 process is initiated early in the

undertaking’s planning, so that a broad range of

alternatives may be considered during the planning

process for the undertaking.” 36 CFR § 800.1 (c)

(emphasis added.) The NHPA requires that consultation

with Indian tribes recognize the government-to- J tJ

government relationship between the Federal

Governmenl and Indian tribes.” 36 CFR § “7

800.2(c)(2)(ii)(C). See also Presidential Executive

Memorandum entitled “Government-to- ~ ·Government

Relations with Native American Tribal Governments”

(April29, 1994), 59 Fed. Reg. 22951, and Presidential

Executive Order 13007, “Indian Sacred Sites” (May 24,

1996), 61 Fed. Reg. 26771.

Section 3.9 of the preliminary EA describes the potential effects on

cultural resources including historic resources. Government to

government consultation in accordance with the National Historic

Preservation Act was initiated shortly after the Baseline Plan was

determined to be administratively complete, approximately May 2014.

Government to government consultation is in progress and is ongoing

until the Forest Supervisor makes a decision. Tribal consultation is

ongoing and will conclude for this action when a final decision

regarding Resolution’s Baseline Plan is reached.


Table 2-82

Comment


72 The USFS must also protect archeological and grave

resources, Sacred Sites and Native American religious

and cultural uses pursuant to the above laws and

requirements as well as: (1) the American Indian

Religious Freedom Act (AIFRA), 42 U.S.C. 1996 et

seq.; (2) the Archaeological Resources Protection Act

(ARPA), 16 U .S.C. 470aa-mm · and (3) the Native

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

(NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.

Section 3.9 of the preliminary EA provides information regarding laws,

regulations, and policies that are relevant to the proposed Baseline

activities and cultural resources. This section includes laws and

regulations pertinent to the protection of Native American graves and

cultural resources.

73 under the Tonto Forest Plan: For any proposed surface

disturbing activity, the following standards will apply:

1. The Forest Service will comply with the National

Historic Preservation Act (as amended) and the P A. 2.

The standards specified in the P A will be followed.

Where the settlement document does not specify

standards, those in the Forest Service Manual and

Handbook will apply. 3. During the conduct of

undertakings, the preferred management of sites listed

in, nominated to, eligible for, or potentially eligible for

the National Register is avoidance and protection.

Exceptions may occur in specific cases where

consultation with the SHPO indicates that the best use

of the resource is data recovery and interpretation. 4.

Sites listed in, nominated to, eligible for, or potentially

eligible for the National Register will be managed

during the conduct of undertakings to achieve a “No

Effect” finding, in consultation with the State Historic

Preservation Officer. Forest Plan Amendment No. 21,

5/311995, Replacement Page- 38-1. Under the NFMA

and NHP A, thus, there must be “no effect” to these

resources.

The Forest Service is complying with the NHPA and NEPA regulations

in its preparation of this EA. Please refer to Section 1.6 of the

preliminary EA for a summary of the ongoing consultation efforts and

also Section 3.9 for a discussion of Cultural Resource existing

conditions and potential environmental consequences from the

proposed Baseline Plan.

74 it appears that lands to be used or disturbed by the

Project are currently the subject of an Ethnographic

Study conducted by or for the USFS and/or Resolution





Table 2-83

Comment


to attempt to ascertain the cultural, religious, and

historical resources of the area. Under NEP A, the NHP

A, and the other laws, policies and requirements noted

herein, the USFS cannot approve this Project until the

Ethnographic Study has been completed and subject to

public review (as part ofthe NEPA process) and full

government-to-government consultation with all

potentially affected Tribes.


comments, which come out of government to government consultation,

in the final decision on the Baseline Plan. As noted in the preliminary

EA, a potential project specific forest plan amendment will be

considered to ensure consistency if a ‘no effect’ determination cannot

be reached.

75 WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO SUPPLIMENT

THESE COMMENTS IF THE SCOPING COMMENT

DEADLINE IS EXTENDED BEYOND THE

CURRENT JUNE 23 DEADLINE.






regulations.

76 On June 4, 2014, the Arizona Mining Reform Coalition

send a Freedom oflnformation Act (FOIA) request to the

USFS (Attachment K) (2014-FS-R3-03882-F) asking

for: “ ... the most recent copy of a proposed “General

Plan of Operations” for the Resolution Copper Mine

Project ... On June 5, 2014, the Arizona Mining Reform

Coalition sent a second FOIA request (attached) (2014-

FS-R3-03883-F)5 (Attachment L) asking for: “ ... all

records and documents regarding the Resolution Copper

Baseline Hydrological & Geotechnical Data Gathering

Activities Plan for the Resolution Copper Mine Project

(the subject of the May 13th scoping letter) ... As

AMRC explained in a letter to USFS dated June 11,

2014, Request for Extension of Deadline for Scoping

Comments on Resolution Baseline Hydrological &

Geotechnical Data Gathering Activities (Attachment

M): “The purpose ofthe NEPA process is to provide

you, the decision-maker in this case, with a complete,

robust, and wide range of alternatives to assist you in

your decision. Adhering to a timeline that will not allow






regulations.


Table 2-84

Comment


this to happen would not serve the public or the Forest

well.”

77 On June 20,2014, Chairman /Terry Rambler of the an

Carlos Apache Tribal Council send a letter to USFS

(Attachment N) asking for an extension to the comment

deadline “ ... the Notice and the concurrent legal affects

of that Notice runs counter to the MOU that the Tribe

signed with TNF in June 2013, regarding the ongoing

Ethnographic-Ethnohistorical Survey. The purpose of

the Survey is to inform the very scoping that is to be

undertaken by the Baseline Activities. It is premature to

go to this scoping while the Ethnographic-

Ethnohistorical Survey is incomplete. The entire

purpose of the MOU between the Tribe and TNF is to

avoid situations such as this. The purpos of the MOU

wa to establish an informed process to gather

information directly applicable to the Proposed Plan.

Section I VI. A. of the MOU provides, “The parties shall

manage their respective resources and activities in a

separate, coordinated, and mutually beneficial manner to

meet the purposes of the MOU” Jumping to scoping on

the Proposed Plan before the Survey is complete

violates this provision and disregards the Tribe’s

processes and timetables. This is an egregious violation

of TNF’s trust and fiduciary obligations to the Tribe. In

short, the Tribe and TNF agreed to rules for the Survey

consultation and the timelines built in to that process.

The Tribe is playing by the rules, and so should TNF.



decision being reached on Resolution’s Baseline Plan. It is the Forest’s

intent to take into consideration the findings of the Study, in

conjunction with Tribal comments which come out of government-to-

government consultation in the final decision on the Baseline Plan.

The purpose of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between

the San Carlos Apache Tribe and the Tonto National Forest was to

establish cooperation and document a procedure for working together

during the Study. This document discusses funding, roles,

communication and confidentiality, specific and limited to the Study.

78 the [San Carlos Apache] Tribe respoctfully requests that

TNF postpone the public comment period on

Resolution’s Proposed Plan until completion of TNF’s

Management Plan and the Ethnographic-Ethnohistorical

Survey called for in the MOU. Alternatively, the Tribe

requests that TNF extend the time for providing



decision being reached on Resolution’s Baseline Plan. It is the Forest’s

intent to take into consideration the findings of the Study, in

conjunction with Tribal comments which come out of government-to-

government consultation in the final decision on the Baseline Plan.


Table 2-85

Comment


comments by the Tribe for 180 days so that the Tribe

may fully develop its comments to the Notice.”

79 In response to an AMRC June 11, 2014, letter to USFS

referenced above, the USFS replied on June 18, 2014,

USFS denied the request for an extension. However, in

its denial (Attachment 0), USFS states: “Therefore, the

scoping period will not be extended, however we

welcome your comments at any time during the

National Environmental Policy Act process.” We

anticipate that we will have additional comments based

on new information contained in our FOIA responses

(when eventually fulfilled) and upon receipt of

additional studies completed pertaining to the area to be

impacted by the proposed action (such as the

Ethnographic Survey mentioned in Chairmen Rambler’s

comment extension letter referenced earlier in these

comments.






regulations.

80 Determining a threshold beyond which cumulative

effects significantly degrade a resource, ecosystem, or

human community is sometimes very difficult because

of a lack of data. Without a definitive threshold, the

NEPA practitioner should compare the cumulative

effects of multiple actions with appropriate national,

regional, state, or community goals to determine

whether the total effect is significant. These desired

conditions can best be defined by the cooperative efforts

of agency officials, project proponents, environmental

analysts, nongovernmental organizations, and the public

through the NEPA process.

Section 3.2 in the preliminary EA includes the cumulative impact

analysis methodology. The information in the cumulative impact

analysis uses the best available information and the analysis follows

CEQ’s Considering Cumulative Effects under the National

Environmental Policy Act and Forest Service NEPA regulations and

policies.


Table 2-86

Comment


81 Because federal projects cause or are affected by

cumulative impacts, this type . of impact must be

assessed in documents prepared under the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The purpose of this

guidance is to assist EPA revie~ers of NEPA documents

in providing accurat~realistic, and consistent comments

on the assessment of cumulative impacts.






policies.

82 To improve how cumulative impacts are assessed in

environmental impact analysis, CEQ developed a

handbook entitled “Considering Cumulative Effects

under the National Environmental Policy Act” (CEQ

1997). CEQ’s handbook offers the most comprehensive

and useful information to date on practical methods for

addressing cumulative effects in NEPA documents.

Consequently, the concepts presented in the handbook

serve as the foundation for this guidance. Reviewers are

urged to use this guidance and the CEQ handbook

simultaneOuSly.






policies.

83 cumulative impact assessment entails a more extensive

and broader review of possible effects. Reviewers

should recognize that while no “cookbook” approach to

cumulative impacts analysis exists, a general approach

is described in the CEQ handbook. As with the review

of direct or indirect impacts, EPA review of cumulative

impacts analysis is most effective if done early in the

process, especially in the scoping phase. Federal

agencies have the responsibility of determining how and

the extent to which cumulative impacts are assessed in

NEPA documents and documenting that effort. In

reviewing the analysis, the EPA reviewer should

determine if the information presented is commensurate

with the impacts of the project1 i.e., a greater degree of

detail is needed for more potentially serious impacts.

The boundaries for cumulative impacts are described in Section 3.2 of

the preliminary EA. The spatial and temporal boundaries for the

cumulative impact analysis take into consideration the potential effects

on resources.


Table 2-87

Comment


84 NEPA documents do not necessarily require cumulative

impact assessments in every case. However, EPA

expects that the action agency consider whether

cumulative impacts is a significant issue that should be

addressed every time a NEPA document is prepared.

NEPA documents in this context includes both

environmental assessments and environmental impact

stateme~Js.fAs with most NEPA assessments, the

analysis should be commensurate with the project’s

impacts and the resources affected. In all phases of the

cumulative impact assessment, EPA should ensure that

the level of analysis and scope are commensuraie with

the potential impacts, resources affected, project scale,

and other factors.


analysis process and boundaries for the evaluation cumulative impacts

that are commensurate with the proposed Baseline activities. Each

resources section in Chapter 3 also has a cumulative impact

assessment.

85 The EPA’s manual on reviewing and commenting on

federal actions under NEPA and section 309 of the

Clean Air Act (EPA, 1984) states that EPA’s comments

should include mitigation measures “ ... to avoid or

minimize damage to the environment, or to protect,

restore, and enhance the environment”

The preliminary EA includes Resolution-proposed Environmental

Protection Measures (Section 2.3.6), and Mitigation Measures

developed by the Forest Service (Section 2.5). Both types of measures

are designed to minimize or avoid impacts to environmental resources.

86 it is appropriate to suggest mitigation to address

cumulative impacts that ar caused by activities other

than the proposed project. For example, mitigation could

include forming partnerships among the different

governmental agencies and private organizations to

work on environmental restoration when those entities

have contributed to cumulative impacts over a long

period of time. It is important to note that EPA

suggestions for mitigation are not necessarily

constrained by whether the action agency has

jurisdiction to implement the measures but the measures

should be realistic and technically feasible.





assessment.


Table 2-88

Comment


87 EPA reviewers should determine whether the NEPA

analysis has identified thJ resources and ecosystem

components cumulatively impacted by the proposed

action and other actions. The reviewer can determine

which resources are cumulatively affected by

considering: (1) whether the resource is especially

vulnerable to incremental effects; (2) whether the

proposed action is one of several similar actions in the

same geographic area; (3) whether other activities in the

area have similar effects on the resource; (4) whether

these effects have been historically significant for this

resource; and (5) whether other analyses in the area have

identified a cumulative effects concern.


assessment methodology and provides a list (Table 3-1) of projects that

are considered in the cumulative impact analysis. Each resource section

(Sections 3.3 to 3.15) contains a cumulative impact assessment that

evaluates each resource where there are potential cumulative impacts.

The cumulative impacts were considered if the resource was vulnerable

to incremental effects, other projects with similar effects, significance

of the impacts, and if there were any other analyses in the area that

identified concerns with potential cumulative effects.

88 Cumulative impacts can affect a broad array of

resources and ecosystem components. In addition to

considering the biological resources that are the staple

of NEPA analysis, examples of other resources that

should be considered include historic and archaeological

sites, socioeconomic services and issues, and

community structure and chara~ter, While a broad

consideration of . resources is necessary for the adequate

assessment of cumulative impacts” the analysis should

be expanded for only those resources that are

significantly I affected. In similar fashion, ecosystem

components should be considered when they are

significantly affected by cumulative impacts. The

measure of cumulative effects is any change to the

function of these ecosystem components.










89 A framework for this consideration for forested areas is

modified from Bedford V and Preston (1988). Certain

types of forests are more likely to be affected by

cumulative effects as described by the following

examples: 1) forests downwind from major sources of

air pollution that contain plant organisms that are








Table 2-89

Comment


susceptible to ozone and other airborne pollutants; 2)

forested areas lower in a watershed because they are

often closer to development and pollutants follow the

movement of water; 3) forests that are susceptible to

fragmentation because, with increasing fragmentation,

areas will have a large perimeter in relation to their area;

and 4) areas experiencing development pressue.

Resources of concern may also be identified by

considering actions that alter ecological processes and

therefore can be expected to produce cumulative effects.

Changing hydrologic patterns, for example, is likely to

elicit cumulative effects.




90 The NEPA document should identify which resources or

ecosystem components of concern might be affected by

the proposed action or its alternatives within the project

area.

Please see Chapter 3 of the preliminary EA for a discussion of the

resources or ecosystem components analyzed in the EA.

91 Geographic boundaries and time periods used in

cumulative impact analysis should be based on all

resources of concern and all of the actions that may

contribute, along with the project effects, to cumulative

impacts. Generally, the scope of analysis will be broader

than the scope of analysis used in assessing direct or

indirect effects. To avoid extending data and analytical

requirements beyond those relevant to decision making,

a practical delineation of the spatial and temporal scales

is needed. The selection of geographic boundaries and

time period should be, whenever possible, based on the

natural boundaries of resources of concern and the

period of lime that the proposed action’s impacts will

persist, even beyond the project life.





assessment.


Table 2-90

Comment


92 The EPA reviewer can determinel an appropriate spatial

scope of the cumulative impact analysis by considering

how the resources are being affected. This determination

involves two basic steps: (1) identifying a geographic

area that includes resources potentially affected by the

proposed project and (2) extending that area, when

necessary, to include the same and other resources

affected by the combined impacts of the project and

other actions.





assessment.

93 Determining the temporal scope requires estimating the

length of time the effects of the proposed action will

last. More specifically, this length of time extends as

long as the effects may singly, or in combination with

other anticipated effects, be significant on the resources

of concern. At the point where the contribution of

effects of the action, or combination of all actions, to the

cumulative impact is not significant the analysis should

stop. Because the important factor in determining

cumulative impact is the condition of the resource (ie.,

to what extent it is degraded), analysis should extend

until the resource has recovered from the impact of the

proposed action.





assessment.

94 There are no set or required formulas for determining

the appropriate scope of the cumulative impact analysis.

Both geographic boundaries and time periods need to be

defined on a case-by-case basis. Determining the

boundaries and periods depends on the characteristics of

the resources affected, the magnitude and scale of the

project’s impacts, and the environmental setting. In

practice, a combination of natural and institutional

boundaries may be required to adequately consider both

potential impacts and possible mitigation measures.

Ultimately, the scope of the analysis will d:Jd on an





assessment.


Table 2-91

Comment


understanding of how the effects are occurring in the

assessment area.

95 To successfully assess cumulative impacts, NEPA

documents should consider a , broad range of activities

and patterns of environmental degradation that are

occurring in the vicinity of the project. The following

considerations (as modified from Klein and Kingsley,

1994) can assist in identifying actions that may relate to

the project under review: 1) the proximity of the projects

to each other either geographically or temporally; 2) the

probability of actions affecting the same environmental

system, especially systems that are susceptible to

development pressures; 3) the likelihood that the project

will lead to a wide range of effects or lead to a number

of associated projects; and 4) whether the effects of

other projects are similar to those of the project under

review. 5) the likelihood that the project will occur --

final approval is the best indicator but long range

planning of government agencies and private

organizations and trends information should also be

used; 6) temporal aspects, such as the project being

imminent;






The cumulative impacts considered if the resource was vulnerable to

incremental effects, other project with similar effects, significance of

the impacts, and if there were any other analyses in the area that


96 The NEPA analysis should establish the magnitude and

significance of cumulative impacts by comparing the

environment in its naturally occurring state with the

expected impacts of the proposed action when combined

with the impacts of other actions. Use of a “benchmark”

or “baseline” for purposls of comparing conditions is an

essential part of any environmental analysis.










97 To determine how the project will affect the resource’s

ability to sustain itself, the NEPA document should

include a description of the baseline condition that

Sections 3.5 to 3.8 of the preliminary EA describe the existing

conditions and the environmental consequences on vegetation, wildlife

and range in the project area from the Baseline activities.


Table 2-92

Comment


considers “ ... how conditions have changed over time

and how they are likely to change in the future without

the proposed action”. (CEQ, 1997) If it is not possible to

establish the “naturally occurring” condition, a

description of a modified but ecologically sustainable

condition can be used in the analysis. In this context,

ecologically sustainable means the system supports

biological processes, maintains its level of biological

productivi;1mctions with minimal external management,

and repairs itself when stressed. While a description of

past environmental conditions is usually included in

NEPA documents, it is seldom used to fully assess how

the system has changed from previous conditions. The

comparison of the environmental condition and

expected environmental impacts can be incorporated

into the environmental consequences or affected

environment sections of NEPA documents.

98 The condition of the environment should, however,

address one or more of the following: 1) how the

affected environment functions naturally and whether it

has been significantly degraded; 2) the specific

characteristics of the affected environment and the

extent of change, if any, that has occurred in that

environment; and 3) a description of the natural

condition of the environment or, if that is not available,

some modified, but ecologically sustainable, condition

to serve as a benchmark. Two practical methods for

depicting the environmental condition include use of the

no-action alternative and an environmental reference

point. Historically, the no-action alternative (as

reflecting existing conditions) has usually been used as .

a benchmark for comparing the proposed action and

alternatives to existing conditions. The no-action

alternative can be an effective benchmark if it

Chapter 3 of the preliminary EA describes the existing condition and

the environmental consequences (direct, indirect and cumulative

impacts) to resources from the Baseline activities. This discussion

includes a description of the regulatory framework for each resource

and also a description of the methodologies used to analyze impacts to

resources.


Table 2-93

Comment


incorporates the cumulative effects of past activities and

accurately depicts the condition of the environment.

99 Determining what environmental condition to use in the

assessment may not be immediately clear. Choosing and

describing a condition should be based on the specific

characteristics of the area. In addition, the choice of

condition can be constrained by limited resources and

information. For these reasons, the environmental

condition described by the environmental reference

point or noaction alternative should be constructed on a

case-by-case basis so that it represents an ecosystem

able to sustain itself in the larger context of activities in

the region. In this respect, there is no predetermined

point in time that automatically should represent the

environmental condition. In addition, it may not be

practical to use a pristine condition in situations of

intensive development. For example, it may not be very

useful to use a pre-development condition to assess the

extent of degradation in a heavily urbanized setting. It

may be more useful in this situation to consider the

condition of several important resources of concern (i.e.,

water quality, air quality, or quality of life) in

comparison with expected environmental consequences

of the action. Since most ecosystems can be delineated

and have distinct characteristics, determination of the

environmental condition does not need to be a

subjective process leading to speculation about the

condition of the environment before it was degraded.



impacts) to resources from the Baseline activities. This discussion

includes a description of the regulatory framework for each resource

and also a description of the methodologies used to analyze impacts to

resources.

100 Selecting the best environmental condition for

comparative purposes can be J based on the following:

1) consider what the environment would look like or

how it would behave without serious human alteration;

2) factor in the dynamic nature of the environment; 3)

define the distinct characteristics and attributes of the



impacts) to resources from the proposed Baseline activities. This

discussion includes a description of the regulatory framework for each

resource and also a description of the methodologies used to analyze

impacts to resources.


Table 2-94

Comment


environment that best represent that particular type of

environment (focus on characteristics and attributes that

have to do with function); and 4) use available or

reasonably obtainable information.

101 Qualitative and quantitative thresholds can be used to

indicate whether a resource(s) of concern has been

degraded and whether the combination of the action’s

impacts with other impacts will result in a serious

deterioration of environmental functions. In the context

of EPA reviews, thresholds can be used to determine if

the cumulative impacts of an action will be significant

and if the resource will be degraded to unacceptable

levels.



impacts) to resources from the proposed Baseline activities. This

discussion includes a description of the regulatory framework for each

resource and also a description of the methodologies used to analyze

impacts to resources.

102 Since cumulative impacts often occur at the landscape

or regional level, , th’resholds should be developed at

similar scales whenever possible. Indicators at a

landscape level can be used to develop thresholds as

well as assess the condition of the environment. By

using the following landscape indicators as modified

from O’Neil et al. (1997) and Jones et al. (1996),

thresholds can be crafted by determining the levels,

percentages, or amount of each that indicate a

significant impact for a particular area. Examples of

thresholds include: • • The total change in land cover is

a simple indicator of biotic integrity; thresholds for

areas with high alterations would generally be lower

than areas that are not as degraded; if open space or

pristine areas are a management goal then the threshold

would be a small percentage change in land cover. •

Patch size distribution and distances between patches

are important indicators of species change and level of

disturbance. Thresholds would be set to determine the

characteristics of an area needed to support a given plant

or animal species. • Estimates of fragmentation and











Table 2-95

Comment


connectivity can reveal the magnitude of disturbance,

ability of species to survive in an area, and ecological

integrity. Thresholds would indicate a decrease in cover

pattern, loss of connectivity, or amount of fragmentation

that would significantly degrade an area. • Indicators of

water quality and watershed integrity can be used to set

thresholds. Specific concentrations and levels of

nitrogen, phosphorous, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, and

temperature can be used. • Thresholds for a decline in

water quality can take the form of size and amount of

riparian buffer zones. Condition of riparian zones and

changes in percent of buffer areas can inditate a decline

in water quality due to soil erosion, sediment loading,

and contaminant runoff.

103 approval of roads is not a right covered by the 1872

Mining Law (especially when the roads are not

proposed to access mineral deposits)- even if the

company could show that its mining claims were valid,

which it has not done.

Section 2.3.1 of the preliminary EA describes the access proposed for

conducting the Baseline activities, and Section 1.5.2 describes the

Tonto National Forest’s decision framework.

104 If the agency does not consider the Project and the Main

Mine part of the same operation- so as to attempt to

avoid them being considered connected actions under

NEPA- then the Project cannot be considered a mining

project under the Mining Law or 36 CFR Part 228

regulations. As such, the Project can only be reviewed

and considered under the USFS Special Use permitting

regime. Thus, the USFS must require the company to

submit right-of-way or other special use permit

authorizations and require that all mandates of Title V of

the Federal Land Policy Management Act (“FLPMA”)

and its implementing regulations are adhered to (e.g., no

permit can be issued unless it can be shown that the

issuance of the permits is in the best interests of the

public, payment of fair market value, etc.). See 36 CFR

Connected actions are defined by CEQ as those actions that are closely

related and should therefore be analyzed together. “Actions are

connected if they (i) Automatically trigger other actions which may

require environmental impact statements; (ii) Cannot or will not

proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously;

and (iii) Are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the

larger action for their justification” (40 CFR part 1508.25). Please refer

to Section 1.5.1 in the preliminary EA for an explanation of

independent utility and connected actions relative to Resolution’s

Baseline Plan.

Because the activities proposed by Resolution in their Baseline Plan are

considered a use that is reasonably incident to mineral exploration, they

are explicitly exempted from special use authorization. 36 CFR part

251.50(a) designates special uses as “[a]ll uses of National Forest


Table 2-96

Comment


Part 251 (USFS special use permit regulations). System lands, improvements, and resources, except those authorized by

the regulations governing … minerals (part 228).” Therefore, Forest

Service special use authorization does not apply.

105 As stated in the USFS Minerals Manual: “In order to

successfully defend rights to occupy and use a claim for

prospecting and mining, a claimant must meet the

requirements as specified or implied by the mining laws,

in addition to the rules and regulations of the USFS.

These require a claimant to: ... 2. Discover a valuable

mineral deposit. ... (and) 7. Be prepared to show

evidence of mineral discovery.” FSM 2813.2 (emphasis

added). In other words, if the agency’s review and

approval of the Project is based on “rights” under the

Mining Law, the record must contain evidence that the

legal prerequisites for establishing those rights exist in

fact and law. Any policy or decision to the contrary is

illegal.

Consistent with Forest Service Manual 2800, Chapter 2810 Mining

Claims, Section 2811.5, a mining claim may lack the elements of

validity and be invalid in fact, but it must be recognized as a claim until

it has been finally declared invalid by the Department of Interior or

Federal courts.




plans of operations. In order to prospect, explore, and make a discovery

of a valuable mineral deposit or establish valid mining claims, the

operator has a right under the 1872 Mining Law to enter upon national

forests and to conduct upon those lands reasonable activities to

prospect and explore for mineral resources. Exercise of this right does

not even require the staking of a mining claim, a fact recognized in the

Forest Service locatable mineral regulations at 36 CFR 228.3(a), where

mineral operations are defined and it is clearly stated that the Forest

Service’s regulations apply to all functions, work, activities, and uses

reasonably incidental to all phases of mineral exploration and mining

under the 1872 Mining Law, whether located on or off mining claims.

106 Resolution’s Main Mine, along with the “other

minerals-related proposals to the Forest” submitted by

Resolution, scoping letter at 4, must be fully reviewed in

the Draft EA/EIS.

As described in the preliminary EA (Section 1.5), Resolution’s

Baseline Plan has independent utility from their General Plan of

Operations, and other related proposals submitted to the Forest.

Section 1.5.1 of the preliminary EA considers connected actions

including Resolution’s other proposed actions. The potential connected

actions are evaluated consistent with Council of Environmental Quality

(CEQ) regulations found at 40 CFR 1508.25.


Table 2-97

Comment


107 The agency must fully comply with the NHP A. It

would be a violation of the NHP A and NEP A to

complete the EA/EIS before consultation and a complete

review of cultural/historical resources has been

completed.


in its preparation of this EA. Please refer to Section 1.6 for a summary

of the ongoing consultation efforts and also Section 3.9 for a discussion

of cultural resources’ existing conditions and potential environmental

consequences from the Baseline Plan.

108 The Yavapai people also have a religious, cultural and

traditional connection to this area, though they view it

differently than the Apache and should also be consulted

about this project.

The Tonto National Forest is consulting with 10 Native American

Tribes regarding the project including the Fort McDowell Yavapai

Nation, the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe, and the Yavapai-Apache Nation.

Letter 156 - Balderas, Ruben

No Comments

Letter 157 - Arnst, Diane

1 The area of your project located in Township Range IS

13E and 2S and 13E is located in a nonattainment area

for 10-micron particulate matter (PM I 0). ADEQ

recommends that the Tonto National Forest request

estimated PMIO and PM2.5 emissions from the tailings

storage pile within Township Ranges IS 13E and 2S and

13E including PMIO emissions estimated for proposed

new construction disturbance on 31.74 acres.





tailings storage site (Section 1.4). Effects on the area from the Baseline

activities in regards to air quality are discussed in the preliminary EA in

Section 3.13.

Letter 158 - Rambler, Terry

1 TNF is required to ensure that Resolution’s Proposed

Plan complies with 36 CFR Part 228 and to analyze the

impacts of the proposed activities in accordance with the

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act

(‘‘NEPA”). Further, according to the Notice, TNF is

required to ensure that Resolution’s Proposed Plan is

consistent with the Tonto National Forest Land and

Resource Management Plan (“LRMP”) of 1985.

Section 1.3 of the preliminary EA discusses the Tonto National Forest

decisions in relation to the U.S. 1872 Mining Law. The Forest Service

derives the authority to regulate such activities from the 1897 Organic

Act (16 USC 478, 551), the Multiple Use Mining Act of 1955 (30 USC

612), and the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 as reissued in

the 1990s. The Forest Service decisions are made in accordance with its

mining regulations at 36 CFR 228A.

2 As stated in the correspondence transmitted to you of

June 20, 2014, the Tribe repeats its request for a

postponement of the comment period for the reasons set

forth in that letter.

The Tonto National Forest considered the requests made to extend the

scoping period for the project. The San Carlos Apache Tribe is

welcome to submit comments regarding the project at any time, either

during the NEPA process or during consultation with the Forest.


Table 2-98

Comment


3 The Tribe fully endorses and incorporates by reference

the comments submitted by the Arizona Mining Reform

Coalition, et al. The Tribe, in t’he interests of economy

and duplicating the same legal and factual arguments,

requests that you consider the comments made by the

Arizona Mining Reform Coalition, et al. as though those

comments were the Tribe’s separate comments. The

Tribe further calls your attention to the fact that the

Tribe is a signatory to the comments submitted by the

Arizona Mining Reform Coalition, et al. In June of

2013, TNF signed a Memorandum of Understanding

(“MOU’’) with the Tribe. Under the MOU, the Tribe

and 1NF agreed to cooperate in the preparation and

completion of an ongoing Ethnographic/Ethnohistorical

Study (‘‘Study”) of Forest Service managed lands in and

around Superior, Arizona. The purpose of the Study is

for the Tribe and TNF to work together to collect data

for the completion of the Study. The very purpose of the

Study was to inform the very scoping that is to be

undertaken by the Baseline Activities. The entire

purpose of the MOU between the Tribe and TNF is to

avoid situations such as this. The purpose of the MOU

was to establish an informed process to gather

information directly applicable to the Proposed Plan.

Section VI. A. of the MOU provides, “The parties shall

manage their respective resources and activities in a

separate, coordinated, and mutually beneficial manner to

meet the purposes of the MOU” Jumping to scoping on

the Proposed Plan before the Survey is complete

violates this provision and disregards the Tribe’s

processes and timetables. In the Tribe’s view, this is an

egregious violation of1NF’s trust and fiduciary

obligations to the Tribe and a breach of the MOU.

The Tonto National Forest considers all comments received on the





during the “Ethnographic/Ethnothistoric Study of the Superior Area,

Arizona.” This MOU discusses funding, roles, communication and

confidentiality, specific and limited to the Study.


Table 2-99

Comment


4 The Proposed Plan indicates that a Class III cultural

resources survey report was prepared and completed by

WestLand Resources for Resolution. Plan of Operations

at 67. The Proposed Plan further indicates that this

report was submitted to TNF. Id. TNF failed to share

this report with the Tribe. Failure to provide the Tribe

with a copy of this report violated the MOU. See MOU,

Section III. B. (TNF’s obligation to timely communicate

with the Tribe). The Proposed Plan states “some of the

proposed activities occur in proximity of existing or

eligible sites.” Without knowledge of which “existing or

eligible sites” are at risk, it is presumptuous and rash to

conclude that the “proximity” of Resolution’s “proposed

activity” would not impact and degrade an area viewed

as sacred by the Tribe and Apaches.

By letter dated August 21, 2014, addressed to Terry Rambler,

Chairman, San Carlos Apache Tribe, the Tonto National Forest

provided responses to your questions. In summary, two copies of the

cultural resources report, “Resolution Project: A Cultural Resources

Inventory of Baseline Hydrologic and Geotechnical Data-Gathering

Sites and Access Roads in the Foothills of the Superstition Mountains,

Northwest of Superior, Arizona,” dated April 30, 2014 were sent to the

Tribe. To provide information to the Tribe in the most efficient manner

possible we would be willing to update our mailing list and ensure any

appropriate staff and/or Tribal members receive copies of Forest

Service correspondence and/or documents, upon your request.

Potential effects to cultural resources from the Baseline activities are

described in Section 3.9 of the preliminary EA. There are no known or

currently identified cultural resource sites that would be affected by the

proposed Baseline Plan.

5 Furthermore, the Tribe’s will consider it a breach of the

MOU if the Proposed Plan proceeds without honoring

Section IV. B. of the MOU. That section provides that

“appropriate cultural representatives and other

knowledgeable Tribal members [shall] ... identify issues,

locations and areas of special importance to the Tribe

that may be located in the Project study area, and work

with Forest Tribal Liaison to located these areas on the

ground .... “ The premature issuance of the Notice for

Resolution’s Proposed Plan prevents the Tribe from

fulfilling this provision of the MOU. There is

undoubtedly a substantial dispute about the size, nature,

and impact of the Proposed Plan, particularly with

regard to Native American and Apache concerns. These

concerns do not reflect mere opposition to well drilling

and road improvements, or a simple disagreement over

the Proposed Plan itself. Rather, this dispute is

substantial, involves the trust responsibility of the






during the “Ethnographic/Ethnothistoric Study of the Superior Area,

Arizona.” This MOU discusses funding, roles, communication and

confidentiality, specific and limited to the Study.


Table 2-100

Comment


United States government as exercised by TNF. Despite

having entered into the MOU, it appears that the Tribe

has made little progress with TNF in an area of

significant legal and regulatory concern. In a prior round

of dispute between the Tribe and TNF on Resolution

activities on Forest Service lands, the Forest Service was

dismissive of the Tribe’s cultural, historic and sacred

concerns in the Environmental Assessment (“EA”)

issued for Resolution Copper Mining Pre-Feasibility

Activities Plan of Operations (“Prefeasibility

Activities”) issued on May 24,2010. See e.g., EA at 3-

66 (“Some effect to their subjective religious experience

may occur from the proposed action; however, it is not

anticipated that this experience would be substantially

burdened.”); 3-86. The disregard of the MOU by TNF is

troublesome.

6 It is TNF’s responsibility to identify and analyze how

Resolution’s Proposed Plan will impact the religious

concerns and practices of Native Americans and

Apaches. This is the clear responsibility of the Forest

Service. To require otherwise would undermine one of

the primary purposes ofNEPA; that is “ensuring that the

agency will inform the public that it has indeed

considered environmental [and cultural] concerns in its

decision-making process.” Bait. Gas & Elec. Co. v.

Natural Res. Def Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 97, 103

S.Ct. 2246 (1983).


in Section 3.9 of the preliminary EA. There are no known or currently

identified cultural resource sites that would be affected by the Baseline

activities.

7 The Tribe has repeatedly requested that TNF examine

all direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of

Resolution’s activities. In objecting to the 2010

Prefeasibility Activities, the Tribe requested that 1NF

examine the cumulative impacts. In providing our

comments to Travel Management on the Tonto National

Forest, the Tribe questioned 1NF’s failure to address the

Section 3.2 and Table 3-1 of the preliminary EA discusses potential

cumulative projects, and also describes cumulative impact assessment.

Potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on resources are

discussed in each resource analyzed in Chapter 3. Section 1.5.1

discusses connected actions including the potential development of the

deep underground copper ore body and the Tonto National Forest’s

Travel Management Planning.


Table 2-101

Comment


impacts of Resolution’s proposed mining operations on

travel in the Forest. As stated in the Tribe’s June 20,

2014 correspondence, the Tribe again requests that TNF

fully examine all direct, indirect and cumulative impacts

of Resolution’s activities in conjunction with this

Proposed Plan.

8 Resolution’s Proposed Plan documents are inadequate to

inform the Tribe and the public of what Resolution

intends to do.

Resolution’s proposed Baseline Plan was made available to the public

and Tribes in May of 2014, on the internet at the project website. The

Baseline Plan has been available since May 13, 2014, prior to the

publication of the scoping notice.

9 Is Resolution examining one potential tailings storage

site or multiple sites? What facilities, structures or other

construction is envisioned for such site(s)?






10 Are the Baseline Activities intended to provide data for

determining foundation conditions beneath the tailings

facility, ponds, dams, waste rock storage areas, plant

facilities, or other planned mine structures? Are the

Baseline Activities intended to provide data for

determining material and mass properties of the bedrock

for foundations, including permeability to support

hydrogeologic assessments? Are the Baseline Activities

intended to provide data for determining any and what

groundwater regimes? Are the Baseline Activities

intended to provide data for estimating quantities and

quality of borrow materials for facilities construction,

including granular soils and rock materials? Are the


determining seismic probabilities or activities? Are the


providing engineering properties for design of structure

foundations?



provided responses to your questions. In summary, Resolution’s

Baseline Plan proposes hydrological, geochemical, and geotechnical

data collection methods over an area being considered for a potential

tailings site.


Table 2-102

Comment


11 Does Resolution have the resources to present a

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”)

which more readily conforms to the type and

topography of Forest Service lands which will be

impacted by the Baseline Activities instead of measures

for the highway design and construction?



provided a response to this question. In summary, the SWPPP

submitted as a part of Resolution’s Baseline Plan is currently under

review by the Forest, and will be revised to reflect approved Plan

elements through the NEPA process.

Section 2.3.6 of the preliminary EA provides a description of

Resolution-proposed environmental protection measures; Section 3.3

provides a description and discussion of water resources, including

proposed mitigation measures.

12 Independently of any Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality analysis, has TNF examined the

SWPPP to determine whether it adequately addresses

the impaired waters of the Queen Creek watershed?



provided a response to this question. In summary, the SWPPP

submitted as a part of Resolution’s Baseline Plan is currently under

review by the Forest, and will be revised to reflect approved Plan

elements through the NEPA process.

Section 2.3.6 of the preliminary EA provides a description of

Resolution-proposed environmental protection measures; Section 3.3

provides a description and discussion of water resources, including

proposed mitigation measures.

13 TNF should complete its adoption of its new Land

Management Plan before it passes on Resolution

Proposed Plan TNF is currently in the process of

revising its 1985 LMRP pursuant to the National Forest

Management Act (“NFMA”) of 1976 (P.L. 94-588) and

36 C.P.R. Part 219 (“2012 Management Ru1e”). TNF

must comply with and present a new land management

plan pursuant to the 2012 Management Ru1e within

approximately the next three years. The Tribe considers

that by proceeding with any examination of Resolution’s

Proposed Plan, TNF is acting prematurely and is in

likely violation of36 C.P.R. Part 219 and the NFMA.

Every project and activity proposed on the Tonto National Forest must

be consistent with the 1985 land and resource management plan (Forest

Plan), as amended. The new Forest Plan, which is expected to be

finalized at the end of 2017, will not change the Forest’s legal

obligations. Accordingly, the Forest still has to adhere to the U.S

mining laws. Every decision document which authorizes a proposed

project or activity (e.g. Environmental Assessment [EA] or

Environmental Impact Statement [EIS]) describes how the project or

activity is consistent with the Forest Plan in place when the decision is

rendered. While in need of revision, the 1985 Forest Plan was designed

to provide for multiple use and sustained yield of goods and services

from the Forest in a way that maximizes long-term net public benefits


Table 2-103

Comment


Under the 2012 Management Rule, Forest Service

Management Plans are to be collaboratively developed

and science-based. Plans are to provide a framework for

integrated resource management and for guiding project

future decision-making by TNF. The public is involved

in developing the new land management plans and will

provide TNF with guidance for the future of the Forest.

fGiven the anticipated duration of the Proposed Plan

(ten years) and the overall duration of Resolution

Copper’s mining operations (decades into the future), it

is disingenuous for TNF to rush this Proposed Plan

through at this time. Instead of waiting until a new

management plan is adopted, TNF proposes to examine

Resolution’s Proposed Plan under an almost thirty (30)

year old management plan which is admittedly

antiquated and severely outdated. Resolution’s Proposed

Plan seeks an authorization period of at least ten years.

To judge and examine Resolution’s Proposed Plan

under an outmoded land management plan is insincere, a

violation of Congressional and agency intent and in

contravention of TNF’s duties to develop a new land

management plan under the 2012 Management Rule.

in an environmentally sound manner.

14 The Tribe requests and anticipates that the same

extension that was granted to Arizona Mining Reform

Coalition, et al. in 1NF’s June 18, 2014 correspondence

be extended to the Tribe.

The scoping period for the proposed Baseline activities was from May

24, 2014 through June 23, 2014. The Tonto National Forest considers

all comments received consistent with Forest Service NEPA

regulations and 36 CFR part 218.

15 The Tribe anticipates that it will have additional

comments based upon its review of the response to the

Arizona Mining Reform Coalition FOIA requests and

upon completion of the Survey contemplated by the

MOU with the Tribe.

The Tonto National Forest welcomes and encourages the San Carlos

Apache Tribe to provide additional input on the proposed Baseline

activities and other projects. The Forest considers all input received

during the NEPA process.


Table 2-104

Comment


16 The Tribe incorporates by reference all of our prior

comments on Resolution activities which have been

submitted to 1NF. The Tribe also incorporates by

reference all of our prior comments which have been

submitted to TNF on Forest-wide matters in which the

Tribe specifically called TNF’s attention to the Tribe’s

opposition to Resolution Copper’s mining related

activities.


proposed Baseline activities. All of the comments received are

considered and evaluated consistent with the Forest Service NEPA

regulations and 36 CFR Part 218, subparts A and B.

17 The Tribe repeats its request that TNF postpone the

public comment period on Resolution’s Proposed Plan

for the reasons set forth above.

Consistent with 36 CFR part 218.6(d), time extensions are not

permitted for comment periods. Comments from the San Carlos

Apache Tribe will be accepted at any time during the NEPA process

before the Responsible Official makes a decision on Resolution’s

proposed Plan.

18 Deciding Resolution’s Proposed Plan under the 1985

LMRP is a breach of faith with the public and a

violation of TNF’ s trust obligations to the Tribe. The

Tribe encourages TNF to postpone the current action

until after the new land management plan for TNF has

been adopted.

Every project and activity proposed on the Tonto National Forest must

be consistent with the 1985 land and resource management plan (Forest

Plan), as amended. The new Forest Plan, which is expected to be

finalized at the end of 2017, will not change the Forest’s legal

obligations. Accordingly, the Forest still has to adhere to the U.S

mining laws. Every decision document which authorizes a proposed

project or activity (e.g. Environmental Assessment [EA] or

Environmental Impact Statement [EIS]) describes how the project or

activity is consistent with the Forest Plan in place when the decision is

rendered. While in need of revision, the 1985 Forest Plan was designed

to provide for multiple use and sustained yield of goods and services

from the Forest in a way that maximizes long-term net public benefits

in an environmentally sound manner.

Letter 159 - Jarrell, Joseph

No Comments

Letter 160 - McCollister, Michael

No Comments

Letter 161 - Chadwick, Karen

No Comments


Table 2-105

Comment


Letter 162 - Bourke, Jessie

No Comments


No Comments

Letter 164 - Swanson, Lesly

1 The Resolution Copper baseline hydrological and

geotechnical data gathering activities are proposed for

areas near 500 kilovolt (kVL 230 kV and 115 kV power

lines operated and maintained by SRP. SRP must be

able to access and maintain the power lines, structures

and rights-of-way associated with the lines in order to

ensure the safe and reliable delivery of power to our

customers. Maintenance routes within power line rights-

of-way or on SRP easements must remain clear. SRP

requests that Resolution Copper and their contractors

refrain from drilling, grading or storing equipment or

material within the SRP rights-of-way.

No road closures are expected to take place and road improvements


public. Baseline activities will not occur within SRP rights-of-way.

Letter 165 - Champagne, Carla

No Comments

Letter 167 - Hood, Chris

No Comments

Letter 168 - Klopatek, Carole

1 Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation (Nation) cannot provide

adequate or informed comments, ask questions, and

compile a list of complete objections to Tonto National

Forest (TNF) letter of May 13,2014 regarding the Plan

of Operations (POO) submitted by Resolution Copper

Mining (RCM) to conduct a hydrologic and

geotechnical testing and monitoring activities on Tonto

National Forest (TNF).

The Tonto National Forest takes scoping comments at any time in the

NEPA and consultation process. Requested due dates on scoping

notices are in place to ensure that all comments can be used most

effectively in the planning process and are consistent with 36 CFR part

218 A and B and Forest Service NEPA regulations.


Table 2-106

Comment


2 The legal obligation of Federal Agencies to consult with

Tribes on a government-to-government basis begins in

the Constitution, in Article I Section 8 (the Commerce

Clause), where Congress is empowered to regulate

commerce with foreign governments, between the states

and with the Ly Indian Tribes. The government of the

United States has an obligation to consult with Tribes as

sovereign nations on matters of interest and concern to

Tribes. Furthermore, Federal agencies programs and

activities must be consistent with and respect Indian

treaty rights and fulfill the Federal government’s legally

mandated trust responsibility with Trib~ Presidential

Orders and memoranda include: Executive Order 12875

(1993) Tribal Governance- specifies that the federal

government must consult with Indian Tribal

governments on matters that significantly or uniquely

affect Tribal government. By Executive Memorandum

of April 29, 1994, the federal government must consult

with federally-recognized Tribal governments prior to

taking actions that will affect those Tribal governments.

Executive Order 12898 ( 1994) Environmental Justice-

specifies that the federal Agency will consult with

Tribal leaders on steps to be taken to insure that

environmental justice requirements are applied to

federally-recognized Tribes. Executive Order 13084

(1998) Consultation and Coordination with Indian

Tribal Governments reaffirms the unique government-

to-government relationship between Agencies and

Tribes. The Order clarifies that the obligation is upon

the federal government and not the Tribes to instigate

and ensure that consultation occurs on a timely basis.

Consultation is defined as an activity to obtain

meaningful and timely input from Tribes on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities.

Government to government consultation in accordance with the

National Historic Preservation Act was initiated shortly after the

Baseline Plan was determined to be administratively complete,

approximately May 2014. Government to government consultation is in

progress and is ongoing until the Forest Supervisor makes a decision.

Tribal consultation is ongoing and will conclude for this action when a

final decision regarding Resolution’s Baseline Plan is reached.


Table 2-107

Comment


Executive Order 13175 (2000) Consultation and

Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments was

necessitated as Agencies had failed to develop Tribal

consultation policies and the courts were slow to

enfranchise Tribes. This Order firmly establishes the

policy of the administrative branch of government as

one that institutionalizes regular and meaningful

consultation with Tribes in the development of federal

policies affecting Tribes. Executive Memorandum

(2004), Government-to-Government Relationship with

Tribal Governments, recognizes the unique legal and

political relationship of Tribes, and reaffirms that each

executive Department and Agency fully respect the

rights of self-government and selfdetermination in their

working relationships with federally-recognized Tribal

governments.

3 Presidential Orders and Constitutional mandates are

expressed in statutes and the policies of the several

Federal Agencies that relate to Tribal matters. The

Department of Agriculture and the Service is thereby

mandated to interact with Tribes on a government-to-

government basis. The Service, has defined Tribal

government consultation and coordination requirements

in the Forest Service Manual under section 1560 dealing

with State, Tribal, County, and Local Agencies; Public

and Private Organizations. Section 1563 outlines

consultation procedures with American Indian and

Alaska Natives. Under this section, table 1563.11

outlines Tribal Government Consultation and

Coordination Requirements, documenting the authority,

whom to contact, subject matter, and time frame in

which to complete the necessary consultation. The

aforementioned mandates that the Service must abide by

include: AIRF A - American Indian Religious Freedom


in the preparation of this preliminary EA. Please refer to Section 1.6 for

a summary of the ongoing consultation efforts. The Tonto National

Forest has initiated consultation with 10 Native American Tribes

including the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation. This consultation is

consistent with all applicable federal laws, regulations, and Forest

Service policies. Government to government consultation is in progress

and is ongoing until the Forest Supervisor makes a decision. Tribal

consultation is ongoing and will conclude for this action when a final

decision regarding the proposed Baseline Plan is reached.


Table 2-108

Comment


Act of 1978 ARPA- Archeological Resources Protection

Act of 1979, as amended and implementing regulations.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and

implementing regulations. NFMA- National Forest

Management Act of 1976, as amended and

implementing regulations. NAGPRA -Native American

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, as

amended. NEPA- National Environmental Policy Act of

1969, as amended (and CEQ regulations at 40 CFR parts

1500-1509). NHPA- National Historic Preservation Act

of 1996, as amended. RFRA - Religious Freedom

Restoration Act of 1993. Executive Order 13007 of

1996 -Indian Sacred Sites on federal land directs the

Federal Agencies to accommodate access to and

ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious

practitioners, as well as to avoid adversely affecting the

physical integrity of such sacred sites.

4 As we understand, the purposes of the aforementioned

activities are to “collect hydrologic, geochemical and

geotechnical data in order to provide baseline

information on these aspects of the environment over an

area being considered for a potential tailings storage

site.” The TNF provided the Nation with, in our onion,

an incomplete survey conducted by archaeologists from

WestLand Resources to supposedly define the

boundaries of those cultural sites that occur within the

proximity of any ground disturbing activities.

By letter dated August 21, 2014, addressed to Ruben Balderas,

President, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, with carbon copies sent to

Carole Klopatek, Government Relations, and Phil Dorchester, General

Manager of the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Tonto National

Forest responded to your concern. In summary, on May 13, 2014, the

Forest sent copies of the “Resolution Project: A Cultural Resources

Inventory of Baseline Hydrologic and Geotechnical Data-Gathering

Sites and Access Roads in the Foothills of the Superstition Mountains,

Northwest of Superior, Arizona,” dated April 30, 2014 to the President

and General Manager. This was done prior to the release of the legal

notice initiating scoping, in order to provide you with the most

information possible to provide comments and concerns. The final

decision on this project will take into consideration the findings of the

archaeological survey.




Table 2-109

Comment



activities.

5 This was the only information that as provided to the

Nation in regard to the POO. The Nation is unclear why

other documents were not directly provided.

The Tonto National Forest provided copies of the Cultural Resource

survey report to the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation on May 13, 2014

in addition to the information included in the scoping letter. Additional

information about the proposed Baseline activities is available online at

the project website.

6 Moreover, the Nation wishes to consult on the entire

document not just what was contained on the 78 pages.

The Tonto National Forest initiated consultation with 10 Native

American Tribes including the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation in May

of 2014. The Forest continues to consult with the Fort McDowall

Yavapai Nation and other Native American Tribes relative to

Resolution’s Baseline Plan. This consultation is consistent with all

applicable laws, regulations and policies, and the Forest will continue

to consult with the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation until a decision on

Resolution’s proposed Plan is reached. .

7 As the U.S. Forest Service, including TNF, are well

aware the Yavapai’s were and are currently stewards of

the land area and including where RCM has and

continues to seek mine and mine related activities-

including where the proposed tailings are to be located.

We are deeply concerned and frustrated that RCM’s

current and planned activities will cause irreparable

harm to the environment including, but not limited to,

contaminating scarce water supplies, decimating the

land base directly through mining practices and post

mining subsidence, destroying habitat for endangered

species, and causing massive surface damage.



proposed Baseline activities, and would be addressed in a separate

environment document. Therefore specific resource discussions do not

address the deep underground copper ore body. Chapter 3 does address

and discuss impacts to several resources including endangered species,

water resources, and several other resources from the Baseline

activities.

8 Mining will also impact lands that are tied to our

cultural and religious heritage as this region is part of

the Yavapai ancestral territory. Dewatering, land sub

idence polluting of the land and water; all of these

activities will desecrate this sacred area.





baseline hydrological and geotechnical data (Section 1.4) to determine

the area’s suitability as a tailings storage location. Section 1.5.1

describes the consideration of connected actions. Potential effects of


Table 2-110

Comment


mining the deep underground copper ore body will be described based

on Resolution’s general mine plan, and they would be addresses in a

separate and appropriate NEPA document.

9 We cannot express in words how deeply felt this land is

to the Yavapai - it simply transcends words. Damage

that will result from this mine cannot be mitigated away.

\with thi document, the Nation also incorporates here by

reference all prior statements and · testimony the Nation

has given to U.S Forest Service (FS) personnel, the

Department of /, 3.3 3



proposed Baseline activities, and would be addressed in a separate

environment document. Therefore specific resource discussions do not

address the deep underground copper ore body. Chapter 3 does address

and discuss impacts to several resources including endangered species,

water resources, and several other resources from the Baseline

activities.

10 With this document, the Nation also incorporates here

by reference all prior statements and · testimony the

Nation has given to U.S Forest Service (FS) personnel,

the Department of Agriculture, Congress, administration

officials, and other federal officials on RCM and those

of other Tribal entities, including, but not limited to, San

Carlos Apache Tribe and Inter Tribal Council of

Arizona (ITCA).

The Tonto National Forest takes scoping comments at any time in the

NEPA and consultation process. Requested due dates on scoping

notices are in place to ensure that all comments can be used most

effectively in the planning process and are consistent with 36 CFR part

218 A and B and Forest Service NEPA regulations.

11 It is apparent from the Cultural Resources Survey and

other activities by RCM and TNF have undertaken or

have failed to undertake that the TNF believe the

Yavapai are not connected to this land and area as

intimately and as strongly as other Tribes. It also

appears to the Nation that TNF categorizes Tribes as

having similar sacred sites, backgrounds, religious

beliefs and practices, ties to the land, cultural beliefs and

practice, etc. However, we are not, for a lack of a better

word, under one functional Tribal belief. The Yavapai

have a very distinct linage unrelated to other Tribes such

as the Apache. Traditions, cultural beliefs, and religious

practices, etc. may appear to overlap to the casual

observer, but upon examination, there are clearly very

distinct differences. It is true that certain lands are held

Beginning in April of 2014, Anthropological Research, LLC, (on

behalf of the Tonto National Forest) initiated an “Ethnohistoric/

Ethnographic Study of the Superior Area, Arizona.” We are eager for

you to accept our invitation of May 28, 2014 to participate in the

ongoing study.


Table 2-111

Comment


sacred by various Tribes, but those traditions and beliefs

that are known to be carried down since time

immemorial are very distinct and often distinct in origin.

Yet, the TNF, on a number of occasions, has chosen not

include information regarding the Yavapai- this includes

actions taken under this POO. Thus, we believe and

request, among other items, that an Ethnographic Study

be completed in order to help minimize the gaps in

information the TNF has in the understanding of the

Yavapai beliefs and behaviors. We trust such as study is

appropriate for studying issues and problems that the

Nation has regarding this project and RCM’s overall

mining project.

12 To some extent, there are no readily amenable

traditional or quantitative or experimental methods

alone that can explain and identify the Yavapai ties to

this area. Thus, we wish to begin a dialog as to how to

accomplish this process.

The Tonto National Forest will discuss methods and information that is

available that can explain or identify the Yavapai ties to the region.

This information may be included as part of the Section 106

consultation process or other formats consistent with all applicable

federal laws, regulations and Forest Service policies.

13 The Nation objects to this entire scoping procedure as it

is premature, especially without regard to direct

Consultation and the lack of knowledge the TNF has to

Yavapai religious, cultural, and traditional ties to the

land, sacred sites, etc. The Nation has not been

consulted or questioned as to the aforementioned survey

or on the next steps in RCM overall mining plan (i.e., in

an all-inclusive step-by-step Plan of Operation to mine

this area.

The purpose of scoping is to collect information from stakeholders

including Native American Tribes regarding their interests and

concerns regarding a proposed action. The cultural resource survey

report has been provided for your reviews and the Tonto National

Forest welcomes your input on the report. Also, see Section 1.6 of the

preliminary EA for additional detail on consultation efforts.

Resolution has submitted a General Mine Plan of Operations to the

Tonto National Forest and the Forest considers the plan complete.

Copies of Resolution’s General Mine Plan of Operations are available

for downloading from Resolution’s website.

14 the FS has taken the positiOn to allow each separate

activity that RCM performs as a single individual

activity without cumulative impacts analysis (although

the purpose of RCM is to mine and, therefore all

activities surrounding this entire project is all under one

Section 3.2 of the preliminary EA and each resource

described/discussed in Chapter 3 of evaluates potential cumulative

impacts from the Proposed Action. Section 1.5.1 evaluates connected

actions including the potential development of the deep underground

copper ore body.


Table 2-112

Comment


aegis - RESOLUTION COPPER MINE). POO’s are

being proposed on every portion of their proposed

activities, including current and proposed operations, as

opposed to ONE SINGLE POO for the entire mining

operation.

15 This so called POO encompass hydrologic and

geotechnical testing and monitoring activities. To be

clear, the Nation does not view the proposed activities

as an independent or routine event. These activities are

not occurring in a vacuum separate from all other

activities that RCM and others have and are planning

to/proposing to undertake in and around this area.

Rather, these activities are all related, cannot be

segmented, and must be considered by TNF

concomitantly.








16 Your May 13th letter states that the mining operations

are allowable under currently mining laws. However,

this is not truly the case. The TNF letter potentially

indicates - and we strongly oppose to this line of inquiry

if this is indeed the case - that they may view this

proposed activity as a stand-alone project not connected

with any other RCM mining actions. It appears that the

review of the direct, indirect, and cumulative

environmental impacts will be limited and may

disregard the cumulative impacts from RCM’s other

operations and other approved POO’s directly linked to

this and the entire mining operations ofRCM. Yet under

the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEP A”), the

USFS must fully review the impacts from all not

isolated “past, present, and reasonably foreseeable

future actions.” Thus, your review must not be limited in

scope nor narrow in view of the entire project as it

would not be congruent under the referenced 36 CFR

Part 228 as the National Environmental Policy Act



are considered in the cumulative impact analysis (including other RCM

projects). Each resource section (Sections 3.3 to 3.15) contains a

cumulative impact assessment that evaluates each resource where there

are potential cumulative impacts. The cumulative impacts considered if

the resource was vulnerable to incremental effects, other project with

similar effects, significance of the impacts, and if there were any other

analyses in the area that identified concerns with potential cumulative

effects.


Table 2-113

Comment


(“NEPA”) clearly demands the FS to fully analyze

impacts from all RCM”s “past, present, and reasonably

foreseeable future actions” for the entire mining

operation.

17 (l) Connected actions, which means that they are closely

related and therefore should be discussed in the same

impact statement.








18 Alternatives, which include: (1) No action alternative.

(2) Other reasonable courses of actions. (3) Mitigation

measures (not in the proposed action).

Please refer to Section 2.4 of the preliminary EA for a description of a

range of reasonable alternatives that were considered. Also refer to

Sections 2.3.5, 2.3.6, and 2.5 for a description of reclamation,

applicant-proposed environmental protection measures, and mitigation

measures that would reduce or avoid the impact to resources.

19 The vague area of impact of the Project as purported by

RCM and TNF state that the total area of

disturbance/impact would be 92.98 ac. However,

RCM’s calculations do not scientifically/correctly

reflect the total area of impact- the area, in fact, is much

greater. Unfortunately, impact was not calculated

according to and consistent with required scientific

methodologies under NEPA guidance documents. For

example, the calculations that are reported by RCM are

only based on a very small consideration of each of the

41 “installations” and 33 geotechnical test “trenches.” In

reality, to minimize their impact, RCM incorrectly

stated the impact (as they report) as a partial

representation of the total combined disturbance area of

each ofthe 74 ‘sites’ (41 “installations” and 33

geotechnical test trenches equal 74 sites) that are to be

analyzed. Of course, this does not include the other

listed activities. Each site will have consultants,

The information provided during the Scoping period for this Proposed

Action was intended to present a general idea of the Proposed Action

and the area in which it would take place. Section 2.3 of the

preliminary EA provides a more developed description of the Proposed

Action (including access roads, heavy equipment use, anticipated time

at each site, etc.). Chapter 3 of the EA describes and discusses the

resources potential impacted by the Proposed Action. Additionally,

Resolution modified their original Proposed Action based on comments

received during the Scoping period. Updated and more detailed

disturbance acreage estimates are provided in Table 2-1 of Chapter 2

and Section 2.3 discusses the changes to the Proposed Action that

would serve to minimize disturbance to environmental resources.


Table 2-114

Comment


surveyors, etc. that will dig and place hydrological and

non-hydrological related machinery, transmitters,

piping, heavy equipment, etc. They will carry, using

various modes of transport from site to site, equipment

and ancillary accessories needed to both construct and

monitor those 74 sites -along with a host of other causal

agents including, but not limited to employing water

trucks- that will cause damage to the areas resources -

will disrupt surface and subsurface of soil - will disrupt

cultural resources and sacred sites within what appears

to be 21 sections ofTNF lands (see vicinity Map, Fig. 1

RCM’s POO). This entire referenced area becomes the

disturbance envelop (area impacted) not each individual

installation, trenches, etc. RCM’s strategy and

propensity to dissect their in.di.vidual POO’s to give the

appearance of no coordinated and cumulative activities,

thereby mm1m1Ze cumulative and mmmg actiVIties,

are clearly demonstrated within this specific project.

Their total area of impact analysis does not include

coordinated activity between each of the 72 sites,

laydown yards, road access, equipment access, etc. For

example, each geotechnical drilling and piezometer

installation proposed would have a disturbance footprint

of approximately 15 feet by 40 feet (0.0 1 acre)- again-

this activity is not isolated and our scientific calculations

show this area to be much greater. Thus, the entire area

that they are using becomes the disturbance envelope.

We specifically request to see RCM’s calculations as to

the areas of impacts and discuss this with the FS as our

total area of impact calculations are orders of magnitude

greater than what is reported. Please provide the correct

impact information. It appears that rather than

scrutinizing RCM’s calculations, TNF used RCM’s area

of impact calculations without question. Errors made by


Table 2-115

Comment


RCM and concurrence by the TNF as to the area of

impact must be addressed by TNF. RCM appears to be

attempting to minimize the project’s impact. l owever,

as we can demonstrate by our calculations, RCM’s

calculations are not only scientifically incorrect, but are

meant to mislead the public. The TNF must reanalyze

the area of impact usmg the aforementiOned rational.

Thus, there are so many unanswered questions as to

describe what activities and their impacts- it is

impossible to fully comment as there is not enough

information provided by either RCM or the FS to make

an informed and meaningful decision as to the impacts.

The Nation requires clarification and consultation on

this matter.

20 We also have questions including, but not limited to,

impacts from installation of bentonite seals described

under Sec. 4.2 Water Quality. These drilling practices

and potential impacts of the entire drilling program to

the existing groundwater aquifer system and the area

must be discussed.

The Proposed Action, including a description of the drilling activities,

is described in Section 2.3 of the preliminary EA. Potential effects from

Resolution’s Baseline Plan to water resources are presented and

discussed in Section 3.3. Resolution would be obligated to comply with

Arizona Department of Water Resources drill hole abandonment

procedures (AAC R12-15 and ARS Title 45, Chapter 2, Article 10).

21 The use of excavated pits under Sec. 4.3, Solid Wastes-

how and where would they be located and how would

they be reclaimed. What is their impact? What are “open

settling pits at unoccupied drill sites” that are referred to

throughout the document?

Test trenches require a 60’x30’ area where vegetation and soils will be


infiltration tests. Reclamation would occur immediately after test

trench activities have concluded. Settling pits would be used to store

saturated drill cuttings within the footprint of each drill pad. More

detailed information regarding Resolution’s Baseline activities can be

found in the preliminary EA Section 2.3.

22 We further have questions as to RCM’s reliance on

Arizona’s water laws as opposed to Federal water rights

and Federal laws as these activities are occurring on

Federal lands.

Resolution is obligated to comply with Clean Water Act regulations

and permitting requirements, and Arizona Department of Water

Resources regulations throughout the life of the project.

23 These activities are actually scheduled for long-term

use. In fact, they are of an indeterminate use which

misrepresents the shorter-term nature as stated within

The Proposed Action, including a description of the Baseline activities

timeframes (up to 10 years for monitoring), is described in Section 2.3

of the preliminary EA. Effects from the Baseline activities to Water


Table 2-116

Comment


your May 13th letter and within the POO. For example-

under Sec. 5.1 Hydrologic Testing & Monitoring Well

Sites it states- “For sites that would continue to be used

long-term for scheduled groundwater monitoring, it may

be possible to reclaim a portion of the drill site while

still maintaining access to and parking at the monitoring

well.” Hydrologic monitoring of wells and piezometers

testing and monitoring activities as well as monitoring

wells and road maintenance and drill site access for

hydrological monitoring are proposed for 10 years - yet

these activities and maintenance of equipment are

required for the entire time this mine and tailing site will

be active- 60, 70 or more years! Plus, this does not

include the required monitoring for purposes post-

mining as this will well exceed the 10 year period

referenced. Clearly, that the nature of what is being

proposed is not being considered in its entirety or

longevity. Please provide the correct longevity

information.

Resources are discussed in Section 3.3. The purpose and need for

Baseline activities is to gather additional baseline hydrological and

geotechnical data (Section 1.4) to determine the area’s suitability as a

tailings storage location. Section 1.5.1 describes the consideration of

connected actions. Potential effects of mining the deep underground

copper ore body will be described based on Resolution’s general mine

plan, and they would be addresses in a separate and appropriate NEPA

document.

24 As mentioned above and in previous correspondence to

the FS, the Nation requests government-to-government

consultation on this matter- at the appropriate local

AND D.C. Federal level. We believe, in regard to RCM,

TNF has demonstrated a lack of understanding and

disregard of the applicable laws as well as FS

policies/regulations/rules, USDA

policies/regulations/rules, executive orders, and other

federal policies and regulations as they apply to NEPA,

Tribal entities, sacred sites, traditional and cultural

properties, etc. In fact, we believe TNF has favored and

has shown prejudice in favor of RCM activities

regardless of requirements within the laws, FS directives

and regulations, and certain executive orders, and

federal policies. We wish to discuss what information


American Tribes including the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation in May

of 2014. The Forest continues to consult with the Fort McDowall

Yavapai Nation and other Native American Tribes relative to

Resolution’s Baseline Plan. This consultation is consistent with all

applicable laws, regulations, and policies, and the Forest will continue

to provide the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation with information.


Table 2-117

Comment


the TNF and FS considers “meaningful,” how this

information has and will be used to evaluate this project

and all other RCM activities, who has and will further

evaluate the Project (and all other activities related to

RCM), qualifications of individual performing the

reviews and analysis, who is/are the Responsible

Official(s), and how the why the TNF has and will come

to their decisions.

25 In relation to the area where RCM is and is planning

activities, ethnographic studies be conducted on and

with Tribal entities that have ties to this area. Such

studies should document and map the cultural

landscapes as they are viewed by and important to

Tribal entities. Such studies would assist in developing

the needed protocols for dealing with Native American

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)

issues as well as for FS planning and decision making in

this area. Developing a human ecology mapping

approach to understand the Tribal connections to these

lands and natural resources and understanding values,

attitudes, and practices of the effected Native American

communities is essential. We request a formal response

as to when they will be performed or, conversely,

justification as to why the TNF or FS will not perform

such studies as there is countless documentation stating

that this area is significant to not only the Yavapai but

many Tribal entities. This was requested to TNF in

previous correspondence. The Nation takes issue with a

number of items in the Cultural Resources Survey. We

request to see a complete data set that went into the

Cultural Resources Survey that TNF mailed to the

Nation on May 13, 2014. We wish to see any and all

data collected including data that was not comprised in

the final report.



decision being reached on the Baseline Plan. It is the Forest’s intent to

take into consideration the findings of the Study, in conjunction with

Tribal comments which come out of government to government

consultation in the final decision on the Baseline Plan.


Table 2-118

Comment


26 A written and digital color copy of the final TNF

approved and accepted Cadastral Survey that RCM was

required to complete and submit under the RCM Pre-

feasibility Activities Plan of Operations Environmental

Assessment (EA) (submitted May 201 0). We

understand that there were delays in processing this

survey; however, the Nation assumes this survey must

have been completed by now given that it was a specific

requirement (prior to related RCM activities proposed or

taking placed) and a considerable length of time has

elapsed since this pre-feasibility decision was filed. was

requested to TNF in previous correspondence.





Forest provided a hardcopy and digital copy of the Cadastral Survey

conducted as a part of Resolution Copper Mining’s Pre-feasibility

Activities Plan of Operations dated May 2010.

27 what filed techniques will be employed? Will they be

GPS’ed? How will specific sites be selected/criteria?

How closely spaced will they be? Who will be

performing these tasks? Will there be separate data

loggers/computers attached to each unit or will there be

someone collecting data using one computer? Will

telemetry be employed? If so, how and where will it be

located and how constructed? How often and how many

people will be in the field collecting this data?


the Proposed Action including the location and description of access

roads, hydrological testing and monitoring wells, geotechnical drill and

piezometer sites, geotechnical test trench sites, and reclamation

activities.

28 What exact protocols and methods would be taken

regarding cultural resources and any finds? What is

specifically being done to assure integrity of sacred

sites? Will there be a cultural resource specialist

accompanying RCM or their subcontractors? Further

information is required on cultural resource protections

other than a sentence stating that there will be avoidance

of these resources?





Forest provided responses to your questions.

As described in Section 2.3.6 of the preliminary EA, there are several

measures that would be followed for cultural resource protection and/or

monitoring. Section 3.9 describes the cultural resources

identified/known in the proposed project area. The Proposed Action

would not impact any known cultural resource sites.


Table 2-119

Comment


29 what vegetation will be affected (if the well and other

sites are not pre-selected you cannot know) and what

specific protections are being made for vegetation?

Effects to Vegetation Communities are evaluated in Section 3.5 of the

preliminary EA.

30 What exact protocols and methods would be taken

regarding cultural resources and any finds? What is

specifically being done to assure integrity of sacred

sites? Will there be a ?.$ ·/ cultural resource specialist

accompanying RCM or their subcontractors? Further

information is required on cultural resource protections

other than a sentence stating that there will be avoidance

of these resource~ lwhat vegetation will be affected (if

the well and other sites are not pre-selected you ~ Z

cannot know) and what specific protections are being

made for vegetation? The same questions are asked

regarding wildlife. [what vegetation will be affected (if

the well and other sites are not pre-selected you cannot

know) and what specific protections are being made for

vegetation?]

As described in Section 2.3.6 of the preliminary EA, there are several

measures that would be followed for cultural and biological resource

protection and/or monitoring. Sections 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, and 3.9

describe the biological and cultural resources environment and discuss

potential impacts. The Proposed Action would not impact any known

cultural resource sites.

31 will the Nation be prohibited from entering into this

area? If so, to what extent and for how long?



public.

32 what resource surveys have been completed by TNF in

the area of this project? (This is assuming that the well

and other sites have been pre-selected. If sites are not

pre-selected, who in TNF will be examining these sites

to determine the resources and if they are viable sites?)

There have been several resource surveys conducted for this proposed

project, including, but not limited to: cultural resources, vegetation,

wildlife, special status plant and wildlife species, visual resources, air

emissions, noise and vibration. The Forest Service did not conduct

these surveys; however, representatives of the Forest Service and

Resolution conducted the surveys. Please refer to Chapter 3 of the

preliminary EA to review analysis of resources based on the surveys

completed for the project.


Table 2-120

Comment


33 what TNF personnel/specialist will review this project in

the field (i.e., pre- and postproject actions) to assure that

impacts/damages did not occur? If impacts/damages do

occur, what will TNF do to ensure that reclamation and

restoration will be conducted? Who will conduct and

pay for such reclamation and restoration activities?

Forest Service Minerals administrators conduct field reviews pre-, post-

and during implementation of a project. Other resource specialists

assist as needed, such as archaeologists, wildlife biologists and

engineers. The Tonto National Forest will hold a reclamation

performance bond to cover the cost of disturbance on National Forest

System lands, including contingency costs, until it is determined that

satisfactory reclamation has been completed by Resolution.

34 what are the liabilities/bonding would TNF hold RCM

responsible for?

The Tonto National Forest will determine the appropriate liabilities and

bonding requirements for the project after the Forest Supervisor has

made a decision regarding the proposed Baseline activities. The bond

will be required to cover the estimated reclamation costs should the

Forest be required to complete reclamation.

35 What is the real and exact time-frame of this project -in

total-including restoration? Are there any extensions

that are built-in?


the Proposed Action including a description of the timeframe proposed

for the Baseline activities and reclamation. There are no extensions to

the timeframe built-in to the Proposed Action.

36 In order to assure accuracy, the Nation, under

government-to-government consultation,requests to

discuss the aforementioned are of impact/disturbance

envelope and calculations prior to re-analysis.





Forest expressed eagerness for open dialogue extended a request to the

tribe to participate in face to face government consultation. In addition,

this letter also provided a description of how estimated surface

disturbances proposed by Resolution were evaluated and clarified

based on revised conceptual project layouts, schematics, typical project

equipment, and plan and profile views of proposed disturbance areas

(see Appendix B of the Baseline Plan). Surface disturbance calculations

include considerations for access by personnel and the various forms of

equipment proposed to be used.

The Tonto National Forest recognizes and respects the sovereign nature

of the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation as a federally-recognized Indian

Tribe, entitled to government to government consultation, which the

Tonto National Forest is amenable to and willing to conduct at any time


Table 2-121

Comment


during the NEPA process. As stated in our August 21, 2014 letter,

comments will be accepted at any time during the NEPA process

before the Responsible Official makes a decision.

37 REMEDY -SCOPING SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN

UNTIL: Ethnographic surveys be conducted.







38 REMEDY -SCOPING SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN

UNTIL: Answers to the Nation’s questions are satisfied.





comments which come out of government to government consultation



permitted for comment periods. Comments from the Fort McDowell

Yavapai Nation will be accepted at any time during the NEPA process

before the Responsible Official makes a decision on Resolution’s

proposed Plan.

39 All scoping documents using this erroneous 92.98 ac

area of impact must be republished/reissued with the

correct information so that the Public has an accurate

understanding ofthe Project and comprehension ofthe

resulting impacts.


the Proposed Action including a description of the Project Area, and

the area of disturbance from the Baseline activities.

40 IN CONCULSION, over the last several years, the FS

has taken a position regarding RCMrepeatedly stating

the requirement for RCM to follow and comply with a

FULL NEPA review. This position has been reiterated

in testimony by FS officials in different House and

Senate hearings on various version of legislation

concerning RCM. The Nation has met with Forest

Service and Department of Agriculture officials in DC

The preliminary EA prepared by the Tonto National Forest complies

with a full NEPA review for the proposed Baseline Activities. This

includes (in Section 3.9) an evaluation of potential effects on Native

American cultural, religious, and sacred sites. Section 1.5.1 describes

evaluation of connected actions including the potential development of

the deep underground copper ore body. Additionally, it is anticipated

that the “Ethnographic/Ethnohistoric Study of the Superior Area,

Arizona” (Study) will be completed prior to a final decision being


Table 2-122

Comment


and they had promised that this project, as a whole,

would comply with NEPA. In fact, the requirement for

NEP A and the requirement to examine how RCM will

affect Native American cultural, religious, and sacred

sites for the entire RCM operation is clear to the FS at

the National level. Current and past FS Associate Chiefs

have testified before Congress on this matter. For

example, FS Associate Chief Mary Wagner before the

U.S. House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests

and Public Lands Natural Resources Committee on June

14,2011 Concerning H.R. 1904: the Southeast Arizona

Land Exchange and Conservation Act of2011, stated

that the FS had a principal concern regarding RCM and

NEPA mining exploration activities under an area that is

sacred should not continue “without a review or study.”

Associate Chief Wagner continued her testimony

making additional statements as to the sacred and

religious nature of this area to Native Americans. Ms.

Wagner clearly articulated that: “it is important to more

fully understand the scope of the project before

proceeding and address potentially significant

environmental concerns and sites of high importance to

local Tribes.”

reached on the Baseline Plan. The Forest Service will consider the

findings of the Study, in conjunction with Tribal comments which

come out of government to government consultation in the final

decision on the Baseline Plan.

41 We have repeatedly noted that RCM operation will

cause irreparable damage to the environment of this area

whose resources are inextricably linked to sacred sites,

archeological, and the cultural and religious heritage of

the Yavapai People. Thus, requesting that Scoping be

indeterminately withdrawn until Consultation and an

Ethnographic survey be completed is warranted. The

Nation has discussed and is on record regarding sacred

sites of this area. The very integrity of these sites (as

well as cultural resources) will be unavoidably damaged








Table 2-123

Comment


given the breath and actual longevity of this project

POO.

42 The Nation has a great concern and opposes how the FS

can evaluate the project independently from all other

actions that RCM is undertaking and will undertake

along with their resulting direct and indirect impacts.








43 The Nation agrees and supports the joint comments

submitted on this matter by the Arizona Mining Reform

Coalition, Center for Biological Diversity, Concerned

Citizens and Retired Miner Coalition, Maricopa

Audubon Society, Sierra Club- Grand Canyon Chapter,

Mr. John Krieg, Mr. Roger Featherstone, and others.

Thus, the Nation has included these comments rather

than repeat them here within our letter. However, please

understand that these comments should not be taken as

secondary, we have included them as an attachment for

brevity - not to minimize them - and wish to consult on

each of the points outlined within the letter.

Consistent with Forest Service NEPA regulations, the Tonto National

Forest considers all comments received.

44 What we also found disturbing is that the TNF only

elected to publish on their website one part of this POO

co~taining 7~ pages. Whereas, the entire P.O.O from

RCM is approximately 511 pages. Why isn’t the entire

POO hsted under the FS website or IS It posted m

another area that the Nation missed? If this was a TNF

error, we request that this entire document be placed for

the public.

Resolutions Plan of Operations for the Baseline Hydrological and

Geotechnical Data Gathering Activities (Baseline Plan) is available on

the internet at the project website. The Baseline Plan has been available

since May 13, 2014, prior to the publication of the scoping notice.


Table 2-124

Comment



No Comments


No Comments

Letter 171 - Nordan, Laura

1 the proposed access from US 60 is located in an area of

planned roadway widening. The project, known as the

“Silver King” segment (ADOT project number

H790001C), is anticipated to begin construction in early

2015 with an approximate duration of 18 months.

Based on comments received during Scoping, Resolution agreed not to

use FR 2395 to access the Baseline activities (Section 2.3 of

preliminary EA). As a result, access to the previously disturbed areas

that connect to FR 2395 and FR 2397 in Section 6 would no longer be

necessary.

Letter 172 - Macias, Tom

1 I have alsways been amazed at all the diversity of life

there. From elf owls, desert tortoises, every kind of

Sonoran desert animal lives there. Its the stronghold of

our mule deer population. We cannot continue to

sacrifice our fellow Earth inhabitants for our own greed.









2 Before we know, we won’t have anything to protect

except designated parks which already look like money

producing amusement parks. Over crowded with people

trying to get the feel of a wild place. This property is a

wild place! We must set a presidence and stop the abuse

of our natural environment.










No Comments


Table 2-125

Comment


Letter 176 - McMullen, Patrick

1 These comments are not intended to speak specifically

on behalf of any one Member Tribe or to address any

specific, traditional, religious and cultural concerns that

any one of our Member Tribes may have on this project.

The Forest Service is required to seek these specifics

through informed one-on-one consultation with each

interested individual Tribes in Arizona as required by

applicable law.

The Tonto National Forest is consulting with 10 Native American

Tribes and considers all comments received regarding the proposed

Baseline activities consistent with NEPA, Section 106 of the NHPA,

and Forest Service policies.

2 The environmental impact statement (“EIS”) or

environmental assessment (“EA’’) must fully analyze all

direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts- including from

Resolution’s Main Mine proposal at Oak Flat, pursuant

to the requirements of the National Environmental

Policy Act (‘‘NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., and

applicable law.




may be considered for a potential tailings storage site. Section 1.4 and

1.5.1 describe that this project is “stand alone” and has separate utility;

the development of the deep underground copper ore body is not a

connected action to the Proposed Action, and therefore was not


development of the deep underground copper ore body, potential

effects on resources, including Native American Tribes religious and

cultural practices, would be considered in a separate NEPA document.

3 The Main Mine at Oak Flat is a connected action that

must be reviewed in a single EA or EIS document under

NEPA.
















Table 2-126

Comment















4 The Forest service cannot assume that Resolution has

“rights” to proceed with the Baseline Activities and PoO

and yet, at the same time, contend that the Baseline

Activities and PoO are not part of the Main Mine

proposal.












5 If the USFS does not consider the current proposed

project and the Main Mine as part of the same project,

then the proper permitting authority is not the 1872

Mining Law or 36 C.P.R., Part 228 regulations, but the

Forest Service’s special use permitting regulations and

requirements.

The Tonto National Forest is required under the Organic

Administration Act of 1897, (which recognizes the rights of U.S.

citizens to access National Forest System lands for all proper and

lawful purposes, including prospecting, locating, and developing

mineral resources) to consider Resolution’s proposed Baseline Plan of

Operation. The activities proposed by Resolution in their Baseline Plan

are considered a use that is reasonably incident to mineral exploration,

they are explicitly exempted from special use authorization. 36 CFR

part 251.50(a) designates special uses as “[a]ll uses of National Forest

System lands, improvements, and resources, except those authorized by


Table 2-127

Comment


the regulations governing…minerals (part 228).” Therefore, Forest


Refer to Section 1.3.2 of the preliminary EA for a more detailed

discussion.

6 Resolution is not “entitled” to have the Baseline

Activities and PoO approved under the Mining Law.


United States Mining Laws and NEPA and other Forest Service mining

and mineral policy as it relates to this Baseline activities project.

Resolution’s General Mine Plan would be addressed under a separate

and appropriate NEPA document.

7 The draft EA or EIS must fully explain all baseline

conditions prior to analyzing or approving the project.

The baseline conditions evaluated in the preliminary EA for Baseline

activities, include: Water Resources, Soil Resources, Vegetation

Communities and Fire Regimes, Invasive Species, Wildlife and Special

Status Species, Range, Cultural Resources, Travel Management and

Public Safety, Recreation, Visual Resources, Air Quality, Climate

Change, and Noise. Please refer to Chapter 3 to review the analysis.

8 Without the required adequate analysis, any potential

fmding of no significant impact (“FONS I”) would be

inadequate- necessitating preparation of an EIS. The

draft EA or EIS must include an adequate mitigation

plan, including a detailed review of the impacts from,

and effectiveness of, any mitigation measures.

Chapter 3 of the preliminary EA contains the analysis of environmental

consequences and Section 1.5.2 describes the Tonto National Forest

decision framework. From the analysis presented in the EA the Forest





9 The draft EA or EIS must fully review all reasonable

alternatives.


range of reasonable alternatives that were considered.

10 The Forest Service must minimize all adverse impacts

from the project and ensure compliance with all

environmental and public land Iaws.

Chapter 3 of the preliminary EA contains the analysis of environmental

consequences and Section 1.5.2 describes the Tonto National Forest

decision framework. From the analysis presented in the EA the Forest






Table 2-128

Comment


11 The Forest Service must fully analyze the project’s

impacts to threatened and endangered species.




Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”), 16 U.S.C. § 470 et

seq.

The Forest Service is fully complying with the NHPA and NEPA

regulations in its preparation of this EA. Please refer to Section 1.6 of

the preliminary EA for a summary of the ongoing consultation efforts.

13 Given the scope of the Baseline Activities and PoO, and

in light of the project’s connection to and interdependent

relationship with the Main Mine as discussed in greater

detail in AMRC’s comments, the Forest Service should

continue the public scoping period( a) until ITCA’s

Freedom oflnformation Act (“FOIA”) request has been

fulfilled by the USFS; [b) to provide sufficient time for

meaningful government-to-government consultation

with affected Indian tribes; and((c) until ongoing and

needed ethnographic studies in the project area are

completed.

The Tonto National Forest has complied with the FOIA request from

the Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona. The response to the FOIA request

was made consistent with regulations. Preliminary EA Section 1.3 and

each of the resources analyzed in detail in Chapter 3 provide

information on the laws, regulations, policies, ordinances, and guidance

that are relevant to the proposed Baseline Activities. This includes

NRHP Section 106 compliance and consideration of traditional cultural

practices based on information provided by Native American Tribes. It

is anticipated that the “Ethnographic/Ethnohistoric Study of the




comments which come out of government to government consultation


14 In light ofthe failure of the Forest Service to provide the

requested documents, by email dated June 18, 2014,

ITCA (through its legal counsel) requested that the

USFS extend the time for comments on the scoping

document until such time as these documents could be

produced in accordance with ITCA’s request

(Attachment D). As of this writing, ITCA has yet to

receive a response to ITCA’s request for an extension as

explained in the original FOIA request, the purpose

ofiTCA’s request for information on the Baseline

Activities, the PoO and all related documents and

materials was to provide ITCA’s Member Tribes with

sufficient information to adequately comment on the

project as outlined in the Forest Service’s May 24,2014,

scoping letter and to engage in informed government-to-

The Tonto National Forest has complied with the FOIA request from

the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona. The response to the FOIA request

was made consistent with regulations.


permitted for comment periods. Comments from the ITCA will be

accepted at any time during the NEPA process before the Responsible

Official makes a decision on Resolution’s proposed Plan.


Table 2-129

Comment


government consultation with the USFS on the project.

Because the Forest Service has failed to comply with

this request (and the FOIA), the ITCA reserves the right

to additional comments regarding the project when the

USFS finally does comply with its obligations under

FOIA.

15 The Forest Service, as an agency of the United States, is

required to engage in informed, meaningful and

advanced government-to-government consultation with

interested ITCA Member Tribes as part of its

consideration of the proposed Baseline Activities and

PoO, as well as the Main Mine as a connected action, as

required by the United States’ trust responsibility to

Indian Tribes, NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. and

applicable law. As not,ed by AMRC’s comments, this

should be completed as part of a single EA or EIS

process.


American Tribes consistent with NEPA and other applicable laws,

regulations, and policies in May of 2014. During the consultation

process, the Tonto National Forest will continue to provide the Native

American Tribes with information. Section 1.5.1 of the preliminary EA

evaluates connected actions including the potential development of the

deep underground copper ore body.

16 Consultation is critical if the Forest Service is to take the

necessary “hard look” at the project and all connected

actions, and their direct, indirect and cumulativ·e

impacts as required by the NEPA, as well as the NHPA,

16 U.S.C. § 470 et seq. and other laws. Anything less

could wrongfully disregard significant impacts that the

current project and the connected Main Mine (separately

or collectivity) might have on the religious, cultural,

traditional and historic relationship that certain of

Member Tribes of ITCA, including but not limited to

the Western Apache Tribes, the Yavapai and the Zuni,

have with the project area and the Oak Flat region in

general.

The preliminary EA incorporates information received during

consultation as appropriate in taking the required “hard look” at the

potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. See Sections 1.6 and

3.9. Section 1.5.1 of the preliminary EA evaluates connected actions,

including the potential development of the deep underground copper

ore body.

17 By focusing the agency’s attention on the environmental

consequences of its proposed action, NEPA “ensures

that important effects will not be overlooked or

underestimated only to be discovered after resources



the preliminary EA for a summary of the ongoing consultation efforts

and also Section 3.9 for a discussion of Cultural Resources existing


Table 2-130

Comment


have been committed or the die otherwise cast.”

Robertson, 490 U.S. at 349. This includes effects to

traditional cultural properties and landscapes, holy and

sacred sites, and other areas of historical concern to

Indian tribes.

conditions and potential environmental consequences from the Baseline

Plan.

18 ITCA urges the Forest Service to take a different tact

here and to comply with its trust responsibility in

conjunction with its obligations under NEPA and all

rovisions of relevant law. Furthermore,the Forest

Service is reminded that simply sending “public scoping

letters” to potentially affected tribal governments,

without more, fails to fulfill the United States’ trust

responsibility to the tribes, and disregards the plain

requirements for consultation found in NEP A and in

Section 106 of the NHP A, that also “recognize the

government-to-government relationship between the

Federal Government and Indian tribes.” This violates

the law and trust responsibility of the United States. See,

e.g., Te-Moak Tribe, 608 F.3d at 598-600 (describing

BLM’s numerous meetings, field visits, ethnographic

studies, and other consultation efforts as part of a

legitimate consultation process). ITCA urges the Forest

Service to set this past histozy aside and to engage fully

with affected tribes as required by law on all aspects of

Resolution’s proposed Baseline Activities. the PoO and

the Main Mine.

In addition to the information contained in the scoping letter, the Tonto

National Forest has provided information to Native American Tribes

during the ongoing consultation process. The government-to

government consultation process initiated by the Tonto National Forest

meets the requirements of NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA.

19 In analyzing the direct, indirect, and cumulative impact

of the proposed project under NEPA, it is important to

understand that “[t]he [federal agency] cannot simply

offer conclusions. Rather, it must identify and discuss

the impacts that will be caused by each successive

[project], including how the combination of those

various impacts is expected to affect the environment, so

as to provide a reasonably thorough assessment of the



are considered in the cumulative impact analysis (including other RCM

projects). Each resource section (Sections 3.3 to 3.15) contains a

cumulative impact assessment that evaluates each resource where there

are potential cumulative impacts. The cumulative impacts considered if

the resource was vulnerable to incremental effects, other project with

similar effects, significance of the impacts, and if there were any other


Table 2-131

Comment


project’s cumulative impacts.” Klamath Sisldyou

Wildlands Center v. BLM, 387 F.3d 989, 1001 (9th Cir.

2004) (emphasis added). This includes impacts to

traditional, cultural and religious interests of Member

Tribes of ITCA.

analyses in the area that identified concerns with potential cumulative

effects.

20 to do this, the Forest Service should extend the scoping

period to provide sufficient time for the Apache Tribes

and Forest Service to complete the ongoing

Ethnographic/Ethnohistory Study that is presently being

undertaken relative to the Superior Area (including

within the current location of the Baseline Activities and

PoO) under the Memorandum of Understanding

between the San Carlos Apache Tribe and the Forest

Service, dated August 16, 2013.





21 In addition, it may also be appropriate under applicable

principles of law to conduct a similar

ethnographic/ethnohistory study within the larger

Superior area, including the current project site, in

coordination with the Yavapai and perhaps other tribes,

as the Forest Service has previously been made aware

(on multiple occasions) of the importance ofthis region

to the traditional, religious and cultural interests ofthese

other ITCA Member Tribes. This is required by, among

other things, Section 106 of the NHP A and Executive

Order 13007.







22 Traditional Cultural Properties or TCPs, are eligible for

inclusion in the National Register under the NHP A and

are subject to the same protections and “hard look”

requirements as any other property that meets the

criteria for evaluation of historic properties found in 36

C.F.R. § 60.4.






Plan.


Table 2-132

Comment


23 Under Section 106 of the NHPA the Forest Service must

(a) make a reasonable and good faith effort to identify

historic properties; determine whether identified

properties are eligible for listing on the National

Register; (b) assess the effects of the undertaking on any

eligible historic properties found; (c) determine whether

the effect will be adverse; and avoid or mitigate any

adverse effects.






Plan.

24 ACHP regulations reguire the agency. at all stages of the

Section 106 process. to consult in good faith with tribes

that “attach[] religious and cultural signitibance to

historic properties that may be affected by an

undertaking.”

The Tonto National Forest’s ongoing consultation process with Native

American Tribes is consistent with ACHP regulations, and Section 3.9

of the preliminary EA considers potential effects on cultural resources.

25 It is important to understand that Section 800.3(b) of

ACHP’s regulations specifically encourages

coordination of Section 106 responsibilities ‘‘with any

reviews required under other authorities such as the

National Environmental Policy Act, the Native

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, the

American Indian Religious Freedom Act, the

Archeological Resources Protection Act, and agency-

specific legislation.” However, compliance with one or

more of these other statutes does not substitute for

compliance with ACHP’s regulations, 36 C.F.R. Part

800. Thus, while~HP regulations allow Federal agencies

to comply with Section 106 through the use of the

NEPA process and documentation, compliance is only

lawful when the steps and standards of Section 800.8(c)

of ACHP’s regulations are met, including the

identification of eligible sites through appropriate

ethnographic and ethno-historical studies. All of these

steps must be met and the results considered as part of

the Forest Service’s consideration of the PoO. the

Baseline Activities and the Main Mine.






Plan.


Table 2-133

Comment


26 Accordingly, the Forest Service must comply with

NEPA, E.O. 13007, and Section 106 of the NHPA in

both identifying and evaluating the impacts of

Resolution’s proposed Baseline Activities, the PoO and

the Main Mine (separately and collectively) on those

sacred sites and TCPs in the affected area. To do this,

the Forest Service should extend the scoping period to

provide sufficient time for the Apache Tribes and Forest

Service to complete the ongoing and needed

ethnographic/ethnohistory studies that are presently

being undertaken and needed relative to the Superior

Area (including within the current location of the

Baseline Activities and PoO).

Preliminary EA Section 1.3 and each of the resources analyzed in detail

in Chapter 3 provide information on the laws, regulations, policies, and

guidance that are relevant to the proposed Baseline Activities. This

includes NRHP Section 106 compliance and consideration of

traditional cultural practices based on information proved by Native

American Tribes. It is anticipated that the “Ethnographic/Ethnohistoric

Study of the Superior Area, Arizona” (Study) will be completed prior

to a final decision being reached on the Baseline Plan. The Forest

Service will consider the findings of the Study, in conjunction with







27 NEPA mandates that public scoping include sufficient

information for the public at large to participate in the

decision making process under NEPA. The USFS has

thus far failed to fulfill these requirements.

The May 13, 2014 scoping letter was based on information made

available to the Tonto National Forest regarding Resolution’s proposed

Baseline activities. Since that time, the Proposed Action has been

revised based on consideration of internal and external scoping

comments (Section 2.3).


No Comments

Letter 178 - McDonald, Tom

No Comments

Letter 179 - Miller, Russ

1 Any action has to have an overall Watershed Analysis to

protect the public. Historically most of copper mining

operations in Arizona have created water quality issues.

And it is tragic that so many of our mines have become

Superfund Cleanup Sites. It is critical that all future

projects address and prevent these problems. ... What

will be the environmental effects of trenching? ...this

Test trenches require a 60’x30’ area where vegetation and soils will be


infiltration tests. Effects to Water and Soil Resources are evaluated in

Sections 3.3 and 3.4 of the preliminary EA. The purpose and need for

Baseline activities is to gather additional baseline hydrological and

geotechnical data (Section 1.4) to determine the area’s suitability as a

tailings storage location. Section 1.5.1 describes the consideration of


Table 2-134

Comment


action need to be addressed along with the soil and

watershed issues.

connected actions. Potential effects of mining the deep underground

copper ore body will be described based on Resolution’s general mine

plan, and they would be addresses in a separate and appropriate NEPA

document.

2 This project as proposed will add to the loss of Sonoran

Desert bajada habitats. The bajada’ s are not a wise

choice for tailings. You can reclaim tailing sites but they

cannot be restored. What are the options? ... The

Sonoran Desert is home to 60 species of mammals,

more than 350 kinds of birds, at least 100 reptiles and 20

amphibians. How will this project affect them? This

issue needs to be addressed in detail.


Section 3.7 of the preliminary EA. The purpose and need for Baseline

activities is to gather additional baseline hydrological and geotechnical

data (Section 1.4) to determine the area’s suitability as a tailings

storage location. Section 1.5.1 describes the consideration of connected

actions. Potential effects of mining the deep underground copper ore

body will be described based on Resolution’s general mine plan, and

they would be addresses in a separate and appropriate NEPA

document.

3 Recreation is a major use of the proposed area. Large

numbers of people from the surrounding Phoenix area

use it for a variety outdoor recreation including

camping, off road vehicles, hunting, sight- seeing, etc. A

baseline of recreational use needs to be developed.


recreation.

4 Well over 2000 native species of plants occur within the

Sonoran Desert. How many of these species are present

in the project area and how will they be affected? This is

issue that needs to be qualified and quantified. The

world famous Boyce Thompson Arboretum is adjacent

to the proposed site. Is this project a compatible use with

such important asset?

Baseline activities would not preclude activities at the arboretum.


Visual effects are evaluated in Section 3.12 of the preliminary EA.

5 Improvements to current secondary roads should be

minimized.


scoping comments from the public and agencies received during the

Scoping Period (Section 2.3 preliminary EA). Resolution made

modifications that would result in fewer disturbances to “secondary”

roads. Reclamation would be implemented for previously disturbed

areas and short-term temporary access roads once Baseline activities

have concluded


Table 2-135

Comment


6 The visuals of this action need to be addressed A visual analysis was conducted for Baseline activities and impact



7 Why is this proposal is being presented as a minor

action when it is really a major environmental action

with long term affects?

From the analysis presented in the preliminary EA the Forest





8 Resolution was committed to sending all residents of

Queen Valley a notice of this proposed action along

with the opportunity to comment. Since this may not

have occurred I request an extension of the comment

period if there was indeed no such mailing.

The Legal Notice announcing the opportunity to comment on

Resolution’s proposed Baseline Plan was published in the Arizona

Capitol Times, the newspaper of record, on May 23, 2014, and on May

21, 2014 in the Arizona Silver Belt. Consistent with CEQ Regulations

found at 40 CFR part 1501.7, affected and interested persons were

notified of the proposal with the mailing of a scoping letter dated May

13, 2014. In addition, the proposal was uploaded to the Forest’s

Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) on May 22, 2014. Please notify

the ID Team Leader at [email protected] of any

other residents in Queen Valley or neighboring communities who wish

to be included in the project mailing list.

9 The proposed action is connected to the proposed main

mine and should be treated as one environmental

review. This action should not be separated from the

overall proposed action.












10 Since this proposal is in support of a speculative and an

uncertain mine should new road construction be

allowed. I would think not.




may be considered for a potential tailings storage site. Section 1.5.1


Table 2-136

Comment


describes and discusses potential connected actions to the Baseline

activities. Resolution would complete the appropriate environmental

document to review potential tailings storage site alternatives when

they complete the environmental document for the General Mining

Plan.

11 What will be the environmental effects of trenching? Test trenches require a 60'x30' area where vegetation and soils will be


infiltration tests. The test trenches would be reclaimed immediately

after all tests are complete.

Letter 182 - Perea, Orlando

1 Can we preserve the hunting areas that will be

destroyed- the natural habitats of deer, pig, numerous

species of birds etc. Will it all be eliminated?

Hunting would not be precluded by or during the Baseline activities.

The Proposed Action would result in 33.63 acres of disturbance and

would utilize several existing forest roads and previously disturbed

areas.

2 Being that we are in a 15 yr draught with (no near end in

sight) what affect is it going to have on this area- again

wildlife, vegetation, etc. already dealing with extreme

fire dangers.


Wildlife and Special Status Species. Section 3.5 evaluates the potential

effects on Vegetation Communities and Fire Regimes, and Section 3.3

discussing Water Resources.

3 The petroglyphs in the area! What are their cultural

importance to Native Americans? How many more are

here? Are we willing to destroy local history? can we in

good conscious just turn a blind eye to these concerns.




activities.

Letter 183 - Witzeman, Bob

1 The agency cannot assume that Rio Tinto has “rights” to

proceed with the project yet at the same time argue that

the project is not part of the proposed main mine

proposal.





1.5.1.4 describe that this project is “stand alone” and has separate

utility; the development of the deep underground copper ore body is

not a connected action to the Proposed Action, and therefore was not



effects on resources, including Native American Tribes religious


Table 2-137

Comment


and cultural practices, would be considered in a separate NEPA

document.

2 If the Forest Service does not consider the project and

the proposed main mine as part of the same project, then

the proper permitting authority is not the mining law or

the Forest Service 36 part 228 regulations, but the Forest

Service’s special use permitting regulations. • Rio Tinto

is not “entitled” to have the project approved under the

1872 Mining Law.

The Tonto National Forest is required under the Organic

Administration Act of 1897, (which recognizes the rights of U.S.

citizens to access National Forest System lands for all proper and

lawful purposes, including prospecting, locating, and developing

mineral resources) to consider Resolution’s proposed Baseline Plan of

Operation. The activities proposed by Resolution in their Baseline Plan

are considered a use that is reasonably incident to mineral exploration,

they are explicitly exempted from special use authorization. 36 CFR

part 251.50(a) designates special uses as “[a]ll uses of National Forest

System lands, improvements, and resources, except those authorized by

the regulations governing…minerals (part 228).” Therefore, Forest


Refer to Section 1.3.2 for a more detailed discussion.

3 The draft EA or EIA must fully explain all baseline

conditions prior to analyzing or approving the project. •

Without the required adequate analysis, any potential

finding of no significant impact (FONSI) would be

inadequate- necessitating preparation of an EIS.

The affected environment was evaluated for potential effects to Water

Resources, Soil Resources, Vegetation Communities and Fire Regimes,

Invasive Species, Wildlife and Special Status Species, Range, Cultural

Resources, Travel Management and Public Safety, Recreation, Visual

Resources, Air Quality, Climate Change, and Noise in Chapter 3 of the

preliminary EA. The Forest Service will determine the necessity for the

preparation of an EIS, taking effects to the aforementioned resources

into consideration.

4 The draft EA or EIA must include an adequate

mitigation plan, including a detailed review of the

impacts from, and effectiveness of, any mitigation

measures. ... The Forest Service must minimize all

adverse impacts from the project and ensure compliance

with all environmental and public land laws.

Section 2.3.6 of the preliminary EA lists the Applicant- proposed

environmental commitments and Section 2.3 describes the

modifications made to the proposed action to reduce potential impacts.

Additional mitigation measures developed to reduce adverse

environmental impacts are included in Chapter 3, and summarized in

Section 2.5.

5 The draft EA or EIA must fully review all reasonable

alternatives.


range of reasonable alternatives that were considered.


Table 2-138

Comment


6 The Forest Service must fully analyze the project’s

impacts to threatened and endangered species.




Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and all other cultural

and religious freedom protection laws.

Section 1.6 and Section 3.9 of the preliminary EA both discuss Forest

Service compliance with NHPA and other cultural and religious

freedom protection laws in the preparation of this EA. Effects to

Cultural Resources from the Baseline activities are described in

Section 3.9. There are no known or currently identified cultural

resource sites that would be affected by the Baseline activities.

8 The EIS or EA must fully analyze all direst, indirect,

and cumulative impacts - including from Rio Tinto’s

main mine proposal. • The proposed main mine is a

connected action that must be reviewed in one EA/EIS









development of the deep underground copper ore body or other actions

not addressed in this preliminary EA, the potential effects on resources

would be considered in a separate review under NEPA and 36 CFR

part 228A

Letter 184 - Witzeman, Bob

1 In addition, any USFS plan to continue its review of the

PoO must comply with federal law as detailed herein.


United States Mining Laws and NEPA and other Forest Service mining

and mineral policy as it relates to this Baseline activities project.

Resolution’s Mine Plan would be addressed under a separate and


2 an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) must be

prepared, due to the potential for significant impacts

from the Project alone, and especially when viewed with

its cumulative impacts from other and/or related

activities as well as connected actions.





(FONSI) and issue a Decision Notice. If Resolution were to proceed

with development of the deep underground copper ore body or other

actions not addressed in this preliminary EA, the potential effects on


Table 2-139

Comment


resources would be considered in a separate review under NEPA and

36 CFR part 228A.

3 The US Forest Service’s (“USFS’s”) review outlined in



with federal law.

The May 13, 2014 scoping letter was based on the information


activities. Since that time, the proposed action has been revised based

on internal and external scoping comments. Section 2.3 of the


Proposed Action.

Letter 185 - McMullen, Patrick

No Comments

Letter 186 - Montgomery, Esq., Susan B.

1 I re-read it again after we talked and still think that you

can extend the scoping period. As you can see, the 30

day limitation is applicable ONLY once the EA process

has been undertaken, while there is 45 days for an EIS. I

agree that it says there shall be no extension (though that

is dumb) under the EA process. However, at this point

you have not prepared a draft EA or EIS (probably not

formally sure what process you will follow) and THUS,

the 30 day limitation and correlating prohibition on

extensions is not yet triggered. This is because you are

only in SCOPING and under NEPA should yet have

decided where to go from here (EA/EIS) — because this

is informed by scoping.


permitted for comment periods. The 30-day public scoping period,

which was offered for Resolution’s Baseline Plan, is consistent with the

36 CFR 218. The Tonto National Forest considers all comments

received during and outside of the comment periods and evaluates these

consistent with the Forest Service NEPA regulations.

2 Scoping should be wide open and you should take as

much time as you need to develop the issues and

understand all the concerns and aspects of the issue, in

particular BECAUSE afterscoping you are on these

crazy timelines and no extensions would seem to be

permitted under this dumb rule – at lease where we are

talking EA.


permitted for comment periods. The 30-day public scoping period,

which was offered for Resolution’s Baseline Plan, is consistent with the

36 CFR 218. The Tonto National Forest considers all comments

received during and outside of the comment periods and evaluates these

consistent with the Forest Service NEPA regulations.


Table 2-140

Comment


Letter 189 - Pemberton, Celeste

1 The County currently maintains a courtesy graded dirt

roadway along the Hewitt Station Road alignment which

falls within this area of drilling, trenching, etc. ... we ...

would like to see some considerations at the time of

construction in regards to Traffic Control for safety of

the traveling Public. Please ensure that whoever is

awarded the construction to provide and maintain at all

times during the existence of said hazard (excavation

areas/machinery) sufficient barriers, hanger signals,

lanterns, detours in accordance with the Manual of

Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).



public. Public safety and resource protection would be in accordance

with FSMs 7700 and 7730 guidelines as established in the Forest Plan.

In addition, public safety would also be managed through the use of

Applicant-proposed EPMs identified in Section 2.3.6 of the preliminary

EA.

2 we would also like to see a schedule as to when exactly

the work will take place so that we are able to notify the

traveling Public that may use this route and are also out

of your way in regards to our regular maintenance

equipment.



public.

Letter 190 - Hickman, Vanessa

1 As an owner of adjacent property, land managed and

held in trust by the ASLD ... according to the draft Plan

of Operation submitted by RCM to the USFS in

November 2013, [using state land] is no longer a viable

option because of existing and competing plans (page

139). As this data gathering activities plan on USFS

land is currently proposed, the ASLD has no problems,

concerns or issues with the project.










Table 2-141

Comment


Letter 191 - Urman, Michael R

1 (d) that Resolution agree that any indications of

mineralization that might be encountered in conducting

the Baseline Activities on lands subject to Bronco

Creek’s claims shall inure to the benefit of Bronco

Creek. Resolution shaH not be entitled to any claim of

discovery based on any information or data arising from

activities on the Bronco Creek claims.









Service, to settle.

2 the Forest Service’s approval of Resolution’s proposed

Baseline Activities should be made subject to the

following conditions: (a) that all hydrological and

geotechnical data generated from the proposed Baseline

Activities be contemporaneously shared with Bronco

Creek;









Service, to settle.

3 (b) that any approval of Resolution’s proposed Baseline

Activities not prevent the approval of exploration

activities by Bronco Creek to occur simultaneously with

Resolution’s Baseline Activities;



public.

4 (c) that any approval of Resolution’s proposed Baseline

Activities not unreasonably prevent or limit Bronco

Creek’s ability to drill exploration holes on the Bronco

Creek claims;



public.

Letter 192 - Urman, Michael R

No Comments


Table 2-142

Comment


Letter 193 - Wright, David Thomas

1 What about the effects of wind potentially carrying

tailings westward towards Queen Valley? Seems like

this is not an environmental consideration per the above

statement of purpose. Will this specific environmental

concern be addressed in future assessments or has it

already been addressed in previous assessments in

which case is there a document I can reference?

Otherwise, I would argue that we are missing a key

component of the overall environmental assessment

here.





tailings storage site (Section 1.4). Effects on the area from the Baseline

activities in regards to air quality are discussed in the preliminary EA in

Section 3.13.

2 what document defines the appropriate depth to

groundwater level that would be acceptable?

Additionally, are there mining standards in general that

serve to define compliance for (l), (2), (3), and (4) -

above - [(1) depth to groundwater level; (2) lithology

and geochemistry of drill cuttings; (3) aquifer hydraulic

parameters, including transmissivity, hydraulic

conductivity, and storage coefficients; and (4) chemical

quality of groundwater] and if not, what entity is

defining compliance in this case?

As a part of Resolution’s Plan, 16 groundwater testing and monitoring

wells are proposed. These wells would be used to collect data on depth

to groundwater; lithology and geochemistry of drill cuttings; aquifer

hydraulic parameters, including transmissivity, hydraulic conductivity,

and storage coefficients; and chemical quality of groundwater.

Additionally, Resolution has proposed to install piezometers in the

geotechnical drill holes to define baseline soil and bedrock

hydrological and geotechnical conditions (depth to groundwater). The

Baseline Plan proposes hydrologic data collection methods in order to

further the present understanding of hydraulic conditions over an area

being considered for a potential tailings site. In doing these activities,

Resolution would be required to comply with, at a minimum, Forest

Service mining regulations found at 36 CFR part 228, subpart A.

3 Appendix K dealt with evaluating the cause of water

level declines - and reading through Appendix K, I don’t

see how it is relevant to the data gathering activities per

Baseline Hydrological and Geotechnical Data Gathering

Activities Plan_50S. They sound like completely

different assessments to me.

The report in Appendix K, “Results of Queen Creek Corridor Survey,

Superior Basin, Pinal County, Arizona,” February 19, 2013, prepared

by Montgomery & Associates, provides background information for

the discussion presented in Chapter 3 of the preliminary EA.

Letter 194 - Lewis, Barnaby V.

No Comments


Table 2-143

Comment


Letter 195 - Kuwanwisiwma, Leigh

1 we consider the archaeological sites of our ancestors to

be “footprints” and Traditional Cultural Properties.

Therefore we appreciate the Forest’s continuing

solicitation of our input and your efforts to address our

concerns. ... we request continuing consultation on this

proposal and accept your invitation for a government

top government in person consultation.

The Tonto National Forest consultation with Native American Tribes

including the Hopi Tribe will be ongoing throughout the proposed

Baseline activities NEPA process.

2 We do not believe adverse effects to numerous

prehistoric sites are justified by Resolution Copper

Mining’s proposed tailings storage site pursuant to the

1872 General Mining Law. ...




activities. The purpose and need for Baseline activities is to gather

additional baseline hydrological and geotechnical data (Section 1.4) to

determine the area’s suitability as a tailings storage location.

Section 1.5.1 describes the consideration of connected actions.




3 We concur that the proposed activities associated with

this project and its reasonably foreseeable purpose, a

tailings storage site, has the potential to disturb and

adversely affect numerous surface and subsurface

cultural properties significant to the Hopi Tribe. Sites

adversely affected by this proposal will be permanently

adversely affected. Therefore, we support the

development of an environmental impact statement for

this proposal and its reasonably foreseeable purpose.

The purpose of Resolution’s proposed Plan is to collect data which will

provide baseline information on an area that may be considered for a

future tailings site by Resolution. This information would be used to

inform later separate actions and proposals related to Resolution’s

proposed General Plan of Operations. Resolution’s Baseline Plan has

independent utility from their General Plan of Operations, and that

separate action would be subject to a separate review under NEPA and

36 CFR part 228A.







Table 2-144

Comment


Letter 196 - Kelley, Lawrence

No Comments

Letter 198 - Hester, Vicki

1 My concern is the inevitable water and ground pollution

that would occur at this site and the impact it would

have not only on wildlife and cattle, but potentially the

groundwater that many of us rely on daily.


quality, are discussed in Section 3.3 in the preliminary EA. Impacts to

vegetation, wildlife and range are discussed in Sections 3.5, 3.7 and

3.8, respectively.

Letter 199 - Steinmetz, Frank

1 The state is running out of water + we don’t need to

waste it on a leaching process. The water runs under

ground into the valley of Arizona

Effects from the Baseline activities to Water Resources are discussed in

Section 3.3 in the preliminary EA. The purpose and need for Baseline

activities is to gather additional baseline hydrological and geotechnical

data (Section 1.4) to determine the area’s suitability as a tailings

storage location. Section 1.5.1 describes the consideration of connected

actions. Potential effects of mining the deep underground copper ore

body will be described based on Resolution’s general mine plan, and

they would be addresses in a separate and appropriate NEPA

document.

Letter 200 - Sohocki, Dennis and Dena

1 The United States Forest Service (USFS) must include

the analysis of this proposed drilling and exploration as

an integrated part of the impacts associated with the full

mining plans. Otherwise, the Forest Service will be in

violation of both NEPA and the CEQ regulations, which

do not allow segmentation of impact analysis on

projects. ... If the USFS were to proceed hand in hand

with Rio Tinto to try to avoid the full, required NEPA

analysis, it will be responsible for taking an active part

in the destruction of our public lands rather than merely

neglecting its duties.

















Table 2-145

Comment














2 if the mine is allowed to proceed, not only would the

environmental impacts be both serious and broad‐based,

but the long‐term economic impacts would also be very

negative. Arizona’s economic future lies with

sustainable tourism and appreciation of, rather than

destruction, of our national treasures, such as the Boyce

Thompson Arboretum and the Superstition Wilderness

area.






3 Currently, the USFS seems to have a management

approach to much of the Tonto National Forest based

upon neglect.


(Section 1.5).

Letter 201 - Conner, Charles

No Comments

Letter 202 - Flowers, Christopher

No Comments

Letter 203 - Marks, Darrell

No Comments

Letter 204 - Dyer, Dawn

No Comments


Table 2-146

Comment


Letter 205 - Steuter, Don

No Comments

Letter 206 - Begalke, Donald

No Comments

Letter 207 - Sloan, Dylan

No Comments

Letter 208 - Beltrane, Edward

No Comments

Letter 209 - Champagne, Gene

No Comments

Letter 210 - Hill, Ginger

No Comments

Letter 211 - Kay, Greg

No Comments

Letter 212 - S, J

No Comments

Letter 213 - Gordon, Janine

No Comments

Letter 214 - Kozma, John

No Comments

Letter 215 - Fitzner, Lisa E.

No Comments

Letter 216 - Pina, Loren

No Comments

Letter 217 - Bethka, Lorraine

No Comments

Letter 218 - Shores, Michael

No Comments

Letter 219 - Glover, Nanette

No Comments


Table 2-147

Comment


Letter 220 - Fugate, Peggy

No Comments

Letter 221 - Scanlon, Peter

No Comments

Letter 222 - Lambertus, Sharon

No Comments

Letter 223 - Magill, Sue

No Comments

Letter 224 - Nosie, Vanessa

No Comments

Letter 225 - Russell, Wendy

No Comments

Letter 226 - Dearstyne, William

No Comments

Letter 227 - Leslie, Darlene

1 As a tribal member of the San Carlos Apache Tribe,

there has been no consultation to our community. This

passing of legislation will violate and disregard our right

of citizens of this country. ... I strongly oppose because

of the lack of communication and the disregard of

showing respect to our tribe. Enough is enough.

The Tonto National Forest initiated government to government

consultation with 10 Native American Tribes in May of 2014 relative

to Resolution’s proposed Baseline Plan. Consultation is ongoing and

comments from the San Carlos Apache Tribe will be considered at any

time prior to the Responsible Official making a decision on the

proposal.

2 As a tribal member of the San Carlos Apache Tribe, ... I

say no to this legislation because this site is scared. The

focused land binds families together and should be there

for future generations.










Table 2-148

Comment


Letter 228 - Lintecum, Kelly

1 I am against this project as it is harmful to the

environment. Boyce Thompson arboretum is one area

that would be affected. ...Please help keep the arboretum

safe so that our family can continue to gather there each

year and remember our lost love one. Polluting the

environment upstream would have negative impacts on

the health and well being of the native plants and

animals.

Effects to Boyce Thompson Arboretum are evaluated in the

preliminary EA in Section 3.12 Visual Resources. Sections 3.5 and 3.7

evaluate effects to Vegetation and Wildlife for the Proposed Action.

Letter 229 - Wilson, Melissa

1 in simple words, clean up this mess. This comment is outside the scope of analysis of the preliminary EA





Letter 230 - Richards, Pat

1 As a homeowner + resident of Superior I am very

concerned this project will have on my quality of life ...

Lets preserve this beautiful area we live in for our

children and grandchildren....These are just a few of the

many social + environmental impacts of this project in

conjunction with the main mine.





tailings storage site (Section 1.4). Chapter 3 of the preliminary EA

describes the potential environmental impacts from this proposed

project on resources and considers visual, noise, recreation and adjacent

landowners.

2 As a homeowner + resident of Superior I am very

concerned this project will have on ... our water quality

+ quality air pollution, to have our soil [?] from surface

contaminants present + long term. ...These are just a few

of the many social + environmental impacts of this

project in conjunction with the main mine.





tailings storage site (Section 1.4). Chapter 3 of the preliminary EA

describes the potential environmental impacts from this proposed

project on resources and considers visual, noise, recreation and adjacent

landowners.


Table 2-149

Comment


3 The 1872 mining law does not make this project a shoe-

in.










Table 3-1

Table 3: Responses to Public Scoping Comments Submitted After the Public Scoping Period Ended

Comment


Letter 84 – O’Connor, Cornelia

No Comments

Letter 166 - Barchas, Sarah

No Comments

Letter 173 - Valencia, Ruth

No Comments

Letter 174 - Pastor, Mike

1 Resolution is entitled to conduct operations that are

reasonably incidental to exploration and development of

mineral deposits on its unpatented mining claims

pursuant to U.S. Mining Laws. In addition, we believe

that this proposed Plan of Activities is consistent with

the Tonto National Forest Land and Resource

Management Plan (LRMP) of 1985 as amended, and

that the mineral exploration, development and

operational activities as outlined in this proposed plan

will be conducted in a manner that minimizes adverse

environmental impact on the Tonto Nation Forest

surface resources as codified in 36 CFR Part 28.

Section 1.3 of the preliminary EA discusses the Tonto National Forest

decisions in relation to the U.S. 1872 Mining Law. In addition, in

Chapter 3 of the preliminary EA each resource section describes the

relevant sections of the Tonto National Forest Land and Resource

Management Plan that may pertain to that resource.

2 The economic benefit to the local area as well as to

Arizona will continue for at least another 50 years with

an estimated economic benefit of more than $61 Qillion

over the expected 60 year lifespan of the operation,

including an estimated $20 billion in federal, state and

local tax revenue and more than $14 billion in wages.

The Forest Service appreciates your time and effort to participate in

this NEPA process and hopes that you will continue to provide

additional input to further our efforts in managing public resources.

Personal preferences and opinions expressed by the public are one of

many viewpoints considered by the Forest Service when making

decisions, however individuals submitting comments must meet the

requirements specified in 36 CFR Part 218, Subparts A and B, in order

to be considered eligible to file an objection.


Table 3-2

Comment


3 we recognize and understand the importance of

protecting our natural resources while providing

opportunities and access to those whose livelihoods

depend on resources located on federal land as well as

access for multiple use, multi-cultural activities, and

multi-recreational opportunities to the public.

Historically, our economy and our residents have

depended heavily upon resource-based industries and,

more recently, upon recreation opportunities on federal

land. We appreciate that we must take care of the land,

but we need to be able to use the land to take care of

ourselves.









4 the proposed new construction would create disturbance

on a total of 31.74 acres of previously undisturbed

Tonto Forest Land, while the majority of the proposal

would impact another 61.24 acres of previously

disturbed land or existing roadways. Given that the

Tonto Forest is comprised of nearly three million acres,

this represents an ·incredibly small amount of impacted

land, for the return benefit of gathering the baseline data

necessary to advance this project to the neXt stage.

Based on comments received during Scoping and from the Forest

Service, Resolution modified their Proposed Action (preliminary EA

Section 2.3). Total disturbance for the Proposed Action is 33.63 acres

which includes previously disturbed areas. The total project area is

75.40 acres and includes existing forest roads.


No Comments


No Comments

Letter 187 - Balderas, Ruben

No Comments

Letter 188 - Jacobs, Sky

No Comments


Table 3-3

Comment


Letter 231 - Gavelek, Joe

1 Hydrologic Drill Sites: 16 sites. Range in depth; 328' >

2297' What is the need for so many well’s, and why

such a variance in depth? Geotechnical Drill Sites:

41 sites. What is the purpose of these sites? Is there

going to any type of construction in this area? I am

under the impression this area is going to be used for a

Tailing area. Test Trench Sites: 33 sites. Why is there

such a widespread need for all these trenches?

As described in Section 1.4 of the preliminary EA, the purpose of the

Baseline activities is to collect hydrological, geochemical, and

geotechnical data to provide baseline information on an area that may

be considered for a potential tailings storage site. See Section 2.3 for a

description of the Proposed Action, to include access, hydrological

drill sites, geotechnical drill sites, and test trenches.

2 Forest Roads: TBD by Travel Management Decision

10 years from approval of the proposed of the proposed

plan. Will FR650, FR252, FR2359, FR518 be closed

for 10 years or any parts of them?

FR 650, FR 252, and FR 518 are existing forest road that will remain

open during construction and operation of Baseline activities. No road



Based on comments received during Scoping, Resolution agreed not to

use FR 2395 to access the Baseline activities. As a result, access to the

previously disturbed areas that connect to FR 2395 and FR 2397 in

Section 6 would no longer be necessary (see Section 2.3 of the

preliminary EA).

3 Land Exchange/Where: Is there going to be a land

exchange? If, so what area will be allocated to the F.S.


(Section 1.5).

Letter 232 - Sohocki, Dennis and Dena

No Comments

Letter 233 - Thiel, Dianne

No Comments

Letter 234 - Ogo, Linda

No Comments


Table 3-4

Comment


Letter 235 – various, Queen Valley Petition

We oppose the current design of Resolution Copper’s

proposed mine and tailings location because it will

negatively impact our air, water, economic well-being,

and recreational opportunities. We request that you find

a more suitable location for the toxic tailings and that

we be notified of every opportunity to express our

concerns.









Preliminary EA Scoping Comment and Response...

Documents

Transcript of Preliminary EA Scoping Comment and Response...