Scoping Summary Report #1

 

 

 
   
United States
Department of
Agriculture

Scoping Summary
Report #1
Forest
Service		  
 

Extent of Public Participation
August 2009  
Rosemont Copper Project
  A Proposed Mining Operation in Southern Arizona
  Coronado National Forest
Arizona

 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance. (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, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call toll free (866) 632-9992 (voice). TDD users can contact USDA through local relay or the Federal relay at (800) 877-8339 (TDD) or (866) 377-8642 (relay voice). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

 

CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION  
PROJECT OVERVIEW    
  Location    
FRAMEWORK FOR SCOPING  
OUTREACH FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION  
  Objectives    
  Description of Scoping Process    
    Announcements    
      Federal Register Notices    
      Media and Press Releases    
      Paid Advertisements    
      Public Mailings    
      Postings    
      Project-Specific Website    
    Public Scoping Meetings    
    Phone Hotline    
    Agency Coordination    
    Tribal Consultation    
TYPES OF RESPONSE SUBMITTALS  
  Comment Compilation    
  Geographic Origin of Submittals    
  Response Submittals Collected at Meetings    

SUMMARY OF FUTURE STEPS IN THE EIS PROCESS

 

  
Appendices
   
A. Regional Office Review of Scoping
B. Federal Register Notice of Intent
C. Federal Register Revised Notice of Intent
D. Coronado Comment Form
   
   
Figures
   
1. Project location map
2. Timeline for scoping process
3. Location of scoping meetings
   
   
Tables
   
1. Newspapers in which Paid Advertisements Were Placed to Announce Hearings
2. Public Open Houses
3. Public Hearings
4. Agencies Contacted to Initiate Coordination
5. Submittal Types
6. Form Letters Received during the Scoping Period
7. Government Agencies, Organizations, and Businesses that Submitted Scoping Comments
8. Origin of Submissions: Arizona, United States, and International
9. Percentage of Submissions by Arizona County
10. Comments Received at the Scoping Meetings
   
   

 

INTRODUCTION

The following is a summary of the Coronado National Forest’s (Coronado’s) scoping efforts to solicit comments on the Proposed Action for the Rosemont Copper Project and to characterize the corresponding public participation. Scoping is the process by which federal agencies invite the public, organizations, and other agencies to provide input on the scope of a proposed project. More specifically, it is the process that federal agencies use to identify issues and potential effects related to a Proposed Action. The Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ’s) scoping definition states,

There shall be an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action. This process shall be termed scoping. (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1501.7)

Coronado will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that will track significant issues within the scope of analysis in order to guide 1) the development of alternatives to the Proposed Action; and 2) the analysis of potential effects of the Proposed Action and alternatives. Scoping may also be used to identify potential mitigation for impacts. It is important to note that the scoping process is not a voting process and comments are not weighted in any manner. The intent of scoping is to identify important issues raised by the public, organizations, and other agencies to determine the scope of analysis. Therefore, no matter how many times an issue is raised by the same or different entities, it is still considered to be one issue.

This is the first of three reports that describe the scoping and content analysis process. Federal agencies typically prepare one report to document this process. However, Coronado has decided to prepare three interrelated reports to more fully explain the scoping and content analysis process for the Rosemont Copper Project. This decision was based on the complexity of the Proposed Action and the correspondingly complex public comments. This first report is intended to do the following:

• explain the framework for scoping;
• detail Coronado’s outreach for public participation;
• identify and quantify the types of responses;
• quantify the geographic origin of submittals; and
• summarize the response submittals collected at meetings.

The second scoping report, Scoping Summary Report #2, Theme of Comments, will explain the content analysis process and provide an overview of the prominent themes identified in the public comments. The report will do the following:

• describe the methodology used to process response submissions;
• categorize the comments received during scoping into thematic groupings; and
• list comments grouped by category and subcategory.

The final report, Scoping Summary Report #3, Comment Disposition, will do the following:

• address how comprehensive themes are proposed to be treated in the EIS;
• group themes into one of the following categories: Issues that Guide Alternative Development, Issues that Focus on Description of Effects, Issues that Address Process, and Issues Out of Scope for this Analysis; and
• provide a table that tracks the disposition of comment themes.

These reports should be approached with caution. Received comments do not necessarily represent the sentiments of the public as a whole, nor are they always technically accurate. As previously noted, in considering these views it is important for the public and decision makers to understand that this process makes no attempt to treat input as if it were a vote. Furthermore, the same comment stated multiple times by the same individual, or groups of individuals, is not weighted in the final analysis. No matter how many times the same comment is made during scoping, it is treated as one comment. For example, form letters submitted dozens of times constitute the same input as one letter with the same content. Again, the purpose of scoping is to determine the scope of issues to be addressed and to identify the significant issues related to a Proposed Action.

PROJECT OVERVIEW

The Rosemont Copper Project is a proposed open-pit copper mine, to be located on Coronado National Forest, Nogales Ranger District, in the northern Santa Rita Mountains in Pima County, Arizona. Augusta Resource Corporation, the parent company of Rosemont Copper Company (Rosemont Copper), acquired the Rosemont Mine property in 2005. Although ore was historically mined in the area, there has been no production of copper, zinc, lead, silver, or gold since 1951. A significant increase in the value of copper over the past several years has made the mining of claims economically viable. There are 132 patented lode claims, 850 unpatented lode claims, and 14 parcels of fee land in the project area. 1

1 Lode claims include a deposit of valuable ore occurring within definite boundaries that separate it from surrounding rock.

A patented mining claim is one for which the federal government has passed its title to the mining claimant, making it private land. A person may mine and remove minerals from a mining claim without a mineral patent. It also gives the owner title to the surface and other resources.

An unpatented mining claim gives the claimant the right to explore for, extract, and process locatable minerals in an area known as a mining claim.

For the purposes of this document, fee land is private land, including all surface and subsurface mineral rights, that is owned by Rosemont Copper Company.

In July 2007, Rosemont Copper submitted a Mine Plan of Operations (MPO), including a reclamation plan, to Coronado, requesting approval to construct and operate a mine and related ore-processing facilities on and adjacent to National Forest System land. Ore deposits that would be mined as part of the project are, for the most part, on Rosemont Copper private property. The proposed mine is expected to annually produce 234 million pounds of copper, 4.5 million pounds of molybdenum, and 2.7 million ounces of silver over the anticipated 20-year life of the mine. The MPO was accepted in February 2008 after Rosemont Copper submitted supplemental information at the request of Coronado. Decisions regarding approval and the content of the final MPO will not be made until a thorough environmental review has been completed. In accordance with 40 CFR 1501.4, Coronado has reviewed the proposal and determined that preparation of an EIS is necessary.

An EIS is being prepared to analyze and disclose to the public the environmental, social, and economic impacts of the proposed Rosemont Copper Project. The EIS will be prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended; CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA; and other associated regulations. The U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) decision will be based on the results of this NEPA process (i.e., the findings of the impacts analyses reported in an EIS) and further, on the National Forest Management Act determination of the consistency of the proposed use with the parameters specified in Coronado’s Land and Resource Management Plan.

Location

The proposed Rosemont Copper Project is located approximately 30 miles southeast of Tucson, Arizona, in Pima County (Figure 1). The project is located just west of State Route 83, on the northern edge of the

 

Santa Rita Mountains in the Helvetia-Rosemont Mining Districts. The area covered by Rosemont Copper’s patented claims, unpatented claims, and fee lands totals approximately 14,880 acres, which include the Rosemont, Peach-Elgin, Broad Top Butte, and Copper World deposits. Rosemont Copper’s proposal is to mine the Rosemont deposit, which would disturb approximately 4,415 acres (including utility corridors) that encompass 3,670 acres administered by Coronado, 995 acres of private land, 75 acres of Arizona State Land Department State Trust land, and 15 acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management.

FRAMEWORK FOR SCOPING

All federal agencies are required to comply with the scoping regulations promulgated by CEQ under NEPA (40 CFR 1501.7). The regulations relating to scoping are general and provide federal agencies with the latitude to conduct scoping appropriate for each agencies’ mission and specific to each Proposed Action. The CEQ regulations direct federal agencies preparing an EIS to engage in a public scoping process (40 CFR 1501.7). Subsequent to enacting 40 CFR 1500, CEQ published Guidance Regarding NEPA Regulations in 1983 (Federal Register 48[146]:34283), which clarified the purpose of scoping:

The purpose of this process is to determine the scope of the EIS so that preparation of the document can be effectively managed. Scoping is intended to ensure that problems are identified early and properly studied, that issues of little significance do not consume time and effort, that the draft EIS is thorough and balanced, and that delays occasioned by an inadequate draft EIS are avoided. The scoping process should identify the public and agency concerns; clearly define the environmental issues and alternatives to be examined in the EIS including the elimination of nonsignificant issues; identify related issues which originate from separate legislation, regulation, or Executive Order (e.g. historic preservation or endangered species concerns); and identify state and local agency requirements which must be addressed.

Furthermore, the CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA state that “there shall be an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed” which “shall be termed scoping,” but they have few specific requirements. These requirements (40 CFR 1501.7[a]) include the following:

  1. Invite the participation of affected federal, state, and local agencies, any affected Indian tribe, the proponent of the action, and other interested persons (including those who might not be in accord with the action on environmental grounds), unless there is a limited exception under §1507.3(c). An agency may give notice in accordance with §1506.6.
  2. Determine the scope (§1508.25) and the significant issues to be analyzed in depth in the EIS.
  3. Identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues that are not significant or that have been covered by prior environmental review (§1506.3), narrowing the discussion of these issues in the statement to a brief presentation of why they will not have a significant effect on the human environment or providing a reference to their coverage elsewhere.
  4. Allocate assignments for preparation of the EIS between the lead and cooperating agencies, with the lead agency retaining responsibility for the EIS.
  5. Indicate any public environmental assessments and other EISs that are being or will be prepared and that are related to but are not part of the scope of the EIS under consideration.
  6. Identify other environmental review and consultation requirements so that the lead and cooperating agencies may prepare other required analyses and studies concurrently with, and integrated with, the EIS, as provided in §1502.25.
  7. Indicate the relationship between the timing of the preparation of environmental analyses and the agency’s tentative planning and decisionmaking schedule.

Aside from these general requirements, the Forest Service has provided further regulations and policies, as allowed by NEPA, to supplement the CEQ regulations. Specifically, 36 CFR 220 clarifies, “Because the nature and complexity of a proposed action determined the scope and intensity of analysis, no single scoping technique is required or prescribed” (CFR 220.4[e][2]). Forest Service Manual 1900, Chapter 1950—Environmental Policy and Procedures, contains the agency’s policies on scoping. These policies require the Forest Service to do the following:

To ensure that an appropriate level of scoping occurred, Coronado consulted with its Southwestern Regional Office. The Regional Forester found that sufficient scoping activities were conducted and that it was appropriate for the initial scoping to conclude in July 2008 (Appendix A).

OUTREACH FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

This section describes the objectives of the scoping process and the scoping process itself, identifies the techniques that were used to notify the public about the opportunity to be involved in scoping, and gives a brief summary of the public scoping meetings.

Objectives

Scoping is the first step and an integral part of the EIS process. The objectives of the scoping process for the Rosemont Copper Project are as follows:

Description of Scoping Process

On March 13, 2008, Coronado published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS for the Rosemont Copper Project in the Federal Register (73:13527–13529) (Appendix B). The NOI identified the purpose of and need for the action and the scoping process and summarized the Proposed Action. The NOI announced a 30-day scoping period for the Proposed Action, with three open house meetings in three locations to occur in March 2008. Upon request from members of the public, Coronado agreed to hold a fourth meeting in Vail, Arizona, on April 5, 2008. In a letter dated March 27, 2008, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords from the 8th District of Arizona requested that Coronado extend the scoping period from 30 to 120 days and host three additional open house meetings in April and three additional public hearings in May and June 2008.

Coronado published a revised NOI on April 29, 2008, in the Federal Register (73:11088–11091) (Appendix C). The revised NOI advised the public of a change in the length of time during which Coronado would accept comments about the scope of the Rosemont Copper Project EIS. It also provided the locations for three public hearings at which oral testimony was recorded, along with written comments. The revised NOI announced the new scoping period end date of July 14, 2008. Comments received within this period, as well as comments received until August 1, 2008, were used to compile this scoping report and complete an analysis of the public comments. Figure 2 depicts the timeline for the scoping process.

Announcements

The EIS and scoping meetings were announced through the Federal Register, media releases, public mailings and postings, the Coronado website for the proposed project,2 and Coronado’s Schedule of Proposed Actions. 3

2 The Coronado website is available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coronado/rosemont/.

3 Coronado’s Schedule of Proposed Actions is available at: <http://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/forest-level.php?110305>.

Federal Register Notices

The Rosemont Copper Project EIS and public scoping process officially began on March 13, 2008, with the publication of the NOI in the Federal Register (see Appe

The initial comment period was extended to 120 days on April 29, 2008, with the publication of the supplemental NOI in the Federal Register (see Appendix C).

 

Media and Press Releases

Coronado prepared media releases and public service announcements to introduce the project and to announce scoping meetings and locations. Media releases were sent to a standard Coronado list of contacts that included local print, radio, and television media. The list also includes federal, state, and elected officials. Paid Advertisements

Coronado placed paid advertisements in local newspapers announcing the location and dates of the public hearings. Newspapers were chosen according to the region in which the hearings were to be held. Table 1 provides the advertising schedule.

Table 1. Newspapers in which Paid Advertisements Were Placed to Announce Hearings
Newspaper
Elgin Hearing (5/12/2008)
Sahuarita Hearing (6/07/2008)
Tucson Hearing (6/28/2008)
Green Valley News
5/4, 5/11
6/1, 6/4
6/27
Sierra Vista Herald
5/4, 5/11
6/1, 6/4
6/27, 6/29
Arizona Daily Star
5/11
6/1
6/29
Arizona Daily Star (East Zone)
5/8
6/5
6/26
Nogales International
5/9
6/3
6/27
Weekly Bulletin
–
6/4
–
Vail Sun
–
6/4
–
Sahuarita Sun
–
6/4
–
Arizona Wildcat
–
–
6/25
Tucson Weekly
–
–
–

 

Public Mailings

The Coronado mailing list was used for the initial mailing to 370 recipients (98 federal, state, and local government entities; 59 non-government organizations; and 223 individuals) from March 11 through 13, 2008. The first direct mailing announced the details of the NOI. The mailing list was periodically revised, updated, and expanded throughout the scoping period and will be further updated throughout the entire NEPA process. Additional mailings were periodically sent to update the public on the addition of open house meetings and public hearings and the extension of the scoping period. By the time the last direct mailing had been sent announcing the last public meeting, the mailing list had grown to 1,275 recipients.

Postings

Information regarding the meetings was provided to the public via informational posting of notices at public locations. Posting locations included many areas that had been recommended by the public: public and private buildings (e.g., post offices, convenience stores in rural locations, Veterans of Foreign Wars meeting locations, etc.); mailbox clusters on rural roads; and near the Tubac, Vail, New Tucson, and Corona de Tucson communities. Postings were placed in more than 35 locations in southern Arizona. The postings were similar to the public mailings in that they provided information about upcoming public meetings, comment-period duration, deadlines for commenting, and other information that might be considered important to the public and stakeholders.

Project-Specific Website

Coronado hosts a website4 specifically for the Rosemont Copper Project EIS that is used to provide information to the public regarding the NEPA process, EIS schedule, public scoping, and other information pertinent to the project. The Coronado’s website provides access to Rosemont Copper’s complete MPO and supplemental documents. Website content includes fact sheets, bulletins, announcements, notices, maps, and documents appropriate for public release. The website directed the public on how to provide comments during the scoping period. The website complies with federal accessibility guidelines.

Public Scoping Meetings

Coronado hosted six public open house meetings in March and April 2008, as shown in Table 2 and Figure 3. A total of 983 people signed in. It is important to note that signing in was voluntary, and not everybody chose to do so. An unknown number of people also attended several open houses and signed in each time. Sign-in sheets were not intended to document each person who attended, but rather to provide Coronado with a list of interested individuals who may be contacted by direct mailing when the Draft EIS is published, in order to solicit additional comments at that time.

Table 2. Public Open Houses
Meeting Location in Arizona Meeting Date (2008) Time of Meeting Number of People Who Signed In*
Tucson (Pima Community College) March 18 7:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. 208
Green Valley (Green Valley Community Center) March 19 7:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. 259
Patagonia (Patagonia High School) March 20 7:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. 182
Vail (Vail High School) April 5 3:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. 211
Sahuarita (Sahuarita High School) April 22 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. 56
Elgin April 23 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. 67
4 The Coronado website is available at: <http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coronado/rosemont/>.
* Not all attendees chose to sign in; therefore, counts are lower than actual attendance.

The open house format was designed to allow attendees to view informational displays, ask specialists about the Rosemont Copper Project and the EIS process, and submit written comments on-site. After careful deliberation, Coronado invited Rosemont Copper representatives to attend the meetings solely for the purpose of answering technical questions about the MPO. This decision was made because the MPO is a complex technical document, and at that time, Rosemont Copper had specialists who were in a better position to answer highly technical questions.

Coronado gave brief presentations at the Vail, Sahuarita, and Elgin open houses based on requests by members of the public and Congresswoman Giffords. These presentations provided an overview of the Proposed Action and the NEPA process.

Members of the public were provided with sign-in sheets, comment forms, fact sheets, and displays. Participants were encouraged to join the mailing list by signing in. The fact sheets and displays provided information about the following:

• the NEPA process; • applicable laws and regulations;
• the scoping process; • location maps; and
• how to comment effectively; • the proposed MPO.

Coronado began providing DVDs and CDs that contained the MPO and supporting documentation at the open house in Elgin. This was in response to comments by the public that slower Internet service (dial-up) in rural parts of southern Arizona did not allow for downloading the entire MPO in a reasonable amount of time. These DVDs and CDs were made available at all meetings from the Elgin open house on April 23, 2008, through the last public hearing on June 30, 2008.

A comment form (Appendix D) was distributed at all public meetings where individuals, government agencies, and organizations were invited to identify and discuss issues and concerns they wished the EIS to cover. Comments were encouraged to be submitted at the meetings or via U.S. postal service, facsimile, or email through the contact information provided in handouts, postings, and the Coronado website.

Following the six open-house format meetings, Coronado hosted three public hearings in Elgin, Sahuarita, and Tucson (see Figure 3). A total of 860 individuals signed in at these meetings (Table 3). As at the open houses, some members of the public declined to sign in, whereas others attended and signed in at all three meetings.

The public hearing format began with Coronado delivering formal presentations on the Proposed Action and the NEPA process. The presentations were followed by an opportunity for individual members of the public to speak (each speaker was given 3 minutes to make comments on the proposed mine). The meetings were professionally audiorecorded, and a court reporter was present to provide transcripts of each meeting.

Table 3. Public Hearings
Meeting Location in Arizona
Meeting Date
(2008)
Time of Meeting
Number of People Who Signed In*
Elgin
May 12
6:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.
222
Sahuarita (Sahuarita High School)
June 7
9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
209
Tucson (Rincon High School)
June 30
6:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.
429
* Not all attendees chose to sign in; therefore, counts are lower than actual attendance.

Phone Hotline

Coronado announced the availability of a phone hotline on June 27, 2008, for use by the public to provide comments. The toll-free number was announced on the Coronado website and through press releases. The creation of the phone line was in direct response to several factors:

  • unofficial comments were made by some members of the public that high gas prices at the time (more than $4.00/gallon) may have precluded the attendance of members of the public;
  • some members of the public felt uncomfortable speaking in a public format; and
  • schedule conflicts precluded the attendance of some members of the public at the hearings.

A total of 302 members of the public left recorded comments. All comments were transcribed by a court reporter.

Agency Coordination

Early and frequent coordination with affected agencies is emphasized in the CEQ regulations and Forest Service policy. Coronado is also required by law and regulation to consult with specific agencies and entities because of jurisdictional responsibilities.

Although no specific agency scoping meetings were held, Coronado contacted key federal, state, county, and local agencies, as well as Native American tribes, to initiate coordination throughout the EIS process. The NOI solicited potential cooperating agencies, and after considering scoping input, further outreach was initiated through a notice in the Federal Register and direct mailings. Table 4 lists the agencies Coronado has contacted.

Table 4. Agencies Contacted to Initiate Coordination

Federal U.S. Air Force, Davis-Monthan Air Force Base
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration
U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation
U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
State Arizona Department of Administration, Risk Management
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources
Arizona Department of Public Safety
Arizona Department of Transportation
Arizona Department of Water Resources
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Arizona Geological Survey
Arizona State Historic Preservation Office
Arizona State Land Department
Arizona State Parks
Arizona State Mine Inspector
Arizona Water Banking Authority
County Cochise County
Pima County
Santa Cruz County
Local City of Tucson
Town of Sahuarita

Tribal Consultation

Coronado mailed the scoping letter to 12 tribes with cultural affiliations in the region. All these tribes had been previously contacted in September 2007, in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Tribal consultation is conducted on a government-to-government basis and is required in addition to scoping. As part of this process, tribes with affiliation to southern Arizona have been providing input on the proposed project. Tribal consultation will be ongoing throughout the EIS process.

TYPES OF RESPONSE SUBMITTALS

Coronado received 11,082 comment submittals. Contained within the 11,082 submittals were more than 16,000 comments. It should be noted a large number of individuals and organizations repeatedly resubmitted the same comments. No effort was made to remove redundant comments in order to ensure that any slight changes would be considered. Comments were submitted in a variety of formats.

Table 5 shows the submittal types by number and percentage.

Table 5. Submittal Types
Submittal Type
No. of Submittals
% of Submittals
Form letter (including post cards, petitions, and duplicate submittals)
8,741
78.9%
Email
963
8.7%
Coronado comment form
577
5.2%
Phone hotline
302
2.8%
Unique letter
292
2.6%
Public hearing transcript
169
1.5%
Facsimile
38
0.3%
Total
11,082
100%

 

Comment Compilation

The majority of the comment submittals were form letters; 25 different form letters were submitted by 8,741 individuals (79% of submittals). For the purposes of analysis under NEPA, form letters were any letters that included the same information presented in the same format. All individuals submitting any version of a form letter were entered into the mailing database and the letter was read to ensure that there were no substantive changes or additions. Occasionally, commenters would include additional comments on the form letters. Petitions were treated as form letters because the reverse side of the signature sheet provided a list of concerns for consideration by Coronado.

Some individuals signed the same petition several times. No attempt was made to verify signatures or remove duplicates from form letters or petitions because it had no bearing on the content of the letter. As stated earlier, the intent of scoping is to identify issues and the scope of analysis, and it is not intended to be a voting process. Table 6 lists the sources of all the form letters received.

The names of the agencies and other organizations that submitted comments are listed below. In some cases, more than one letter was sent to Coronado by an individual, agency, or organization. Twenty-six

government agencies submitted comments, including seven from federal agencies, nine from state agencies, and 10 from local agencies. In addition, 47 organizations and 40 businesses submitted comments during scoping. Table 7 lists all government agencies, organizations, and businesses that submitted comments.

Table 6. Form Letters Received during the Scoping Period
Form Letter Number and Organization Responsible Total No. Received % of All Form Letters
1. No stated affiliation (duplicate submittal)
97
1.11%
2. Hilton Road Homeowners (duplicate submittal)
32
0.37%
3. No stated affiliation (duplicate submittal)
16
0.18%
4. Rosemont Copper Community Outreach (postcard)
1,463
16.74%
5. Maricopa Audubon Society (duplicate submittal)
3
0.03%
6. No stated affiliation (duplicate submittal)
3
0.03%
7. No stated affiliation (duplicate submittal)
13
0.15%
8. No stated affiliation (duplicate submittal)
2
0.02%
9. No stated affiliation (duplicate submittal)
2
0.02%
10. No stated affiliation (duplicate submittal)
4
0.05%
11. No stated affiliation (duplicate submittal)
6
0.07%
12. Local well owners (duplicate submittal)
9
0.10%
13. No stated affiliation (duplicate submittal)
22
0.25%
14. No stated affiliation (duplicate submittal)
9
0.10%
15. Epona Center visitors (duplicate submittal)
5
0.06%
16. Save the Scenic Santa Ritas (Petition)
6,508
74.45%
17. No stated affiliation (Petition)
313
3.58%
18. Local ranch owners (duplicate submittal)
5
0.06%
19. Local well owners (duplicate submittal)
13
0.15%
20. Local well owners (duplicate submittal)
4
0.05%
21. No stated affiliation (duplicate submittal)
6
0.07%
22. No stated affiliation (duplicate submittal)
3
0.03%
23. No stated affiliation (duplicate submittal)
101
1.16%
24. Save the Scenic Santa Ritas (Petition)
15
0.17%
25. Epona Center visitors (duplicate submittal)
87
1.00%
Total
8,741
100%
Table 7. Government Agencies, Organizations, and Businesses that Submitted Scoping Comments
Government Agencies
Tribal Tohono O’odham Nation
Federal U.S. Air Force, Civil Engineering Squadron at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base
U.S. Congress, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation
U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency–Region IX
State Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division
Arizona Department of Transportation
Arizona Department of Water Resources
Arizona Game and Fish Department, Region 5 Arizona Geological Survey
Arizona State Land Department
Arizona State House of Representatives
Arizona State Senate Republican Caucus
Local City of Tucson Mayor and Council
Corona de Tucson Fire Department
Pima County Administrator’s Office
Pima County Board of Supervisors
Pima County Supervisor District 4
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
Town of Marana Mayor and Council
Town of Oro Valley Mayor and Council
Town of Patagonia Mayor and Council
Town of Sahuarita Office of the Mayor and Council
Organizations
National Center for Environmental Connections
Defenders of Wildlife
Earthworks
International Dark Sky Association
Jaguar Habitat Campaign
National Audubon Society, Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch
Northwest Mining Association
Republicans for Environmental Protection
Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Chapter
Sierra Club, Rincon Group
Smithsonian Institution, Whipple Observatory
State Arizona Native Plant Society
Arizona Mining Association
Arizona Walks Center for Biological Diversity
Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection
Don’t Waste Arizona, Inc.
Friends of the Jaguar
Groundwater Awareness League, Inc.
Nanotechnology Cluster of Arizona
Northern Arizona Jaguar Project
Sky Island Alliance
Southern Arizona Hang Glider Association
Southern Arizona Hiking Club
Wrong Mountain Wildlife Preserve
Local Casa Paloma I Homeowners
Cienega Watershed Partnership
Empire Ranch Foundation
Environmental Committee of Villas E. Condominium Association
Green Valley Community Coordinating Council, Inc.
Hilton Road Community Organization
H.O.P.E. Horse Rescue
Maricopa Audubon Society
Pantano Christian Church Motorcycle Life Group
Santa Rita Abbey
Santa Rita Foothills Community Association
Save the Scenic Santa Ritas
Singing Valley North Owners Association
Sonoran Desert Mountain Bicyclists
Sustainable Tucson
Tanque Verde Valley Association
Tucson Arts Brigade/Mural Arts Program
Tucson Orienteering Club
Tucson Audubon Society
Vail/Cienega Corridor Volunteer
Vail Preservation Society
Businesses A Land in Balance, LLC
Adventures in Awareness, LLC
A.I.C.P.
Augusta Resources
Better Bytes
The Black Dove Bed & Breakfast
Canelo Hills Vineyard & Winery
Charron Vineyards
Circle Z Ranch
Creative Spirit Artists
Dos Cabezas Wineworks
Emmett McLoughlin Realty, Inc.
Eponquest, LLC
Errol L. Montgomery & Associates, Inc.
Farmers Investment Co.
General Plasma, Inc.
Global Arts Gallery
Jarnac Observatory
La Hacienda de Sonoita
Lennar Homes
Long Realty Sonoita/Patagonia
MAG-TEK Minerals
Marsha Burden & Associates, Inc.
Mesquite Grove Gallery & Cross Creek Cottages
Optical Data Association
Quick Custom Metals
Rain Valley Bed & Breakfast
Rancho del Conejo
Community Water Co-op
Red Mountain Foods
Resource MFG
San Cavetano Veterinary Hospital
Santa Rita Lodge
Snell & Wilmer Law Offices
Southwest Energy LLC
Speed Machine
Stardancer Yachts
The Stevens-Lloyd Group, Inc.
Strongpoint
Tree of Life Rejuvenation Center
Xanadu Ranch GetAway

 

Geographic Origin of Submittals

It was not possible to determine where approximately 30% of the comments originated. Comments are not weighted by the region from which they originated because that information is not needed in order to develop issues or define the scope of analysis. Several of the methods used to solicit comments made no request for the address of the commenter. Methods of submission that commonly lacked complete addresses were the phone line, oral comments (hearings), and email. International

The remaining 70% of submittals were briefly analyzed to determine roughly where the majority of comments originated. Submittals were received from 47 states, plus the District of Columbia, and from 11 foreign countries (Table 8).

From Arizona, comment submittals that provided addresses were received from every county except La Paz County (Table 9). Approximately 98% of these submittals were from Pima (81.2%), Cochise (9.2%), and Santa Cruz (7.2%) counties.

Table 8. Origin of Submissions: Arizona, United States, and International
Geographic Origin
Number of Submittals
Percentage
Arizona
7547
68.10%
Unknown
3287
29.66%
U.S. (excluding AZ)
228
2.06%
International
20
0.18%
Total
11,082
100%

 


Table 9. Percentage of Submissions by Arizona County
Geographic Origin
Number of Submittals
Percentage
Pima
6128
81.20%
Cochise
693
9.18%
Santa Cruz
545
7.22%
Maricopa
78
1.03%
Unknown
55
0.73%
Pinal
20
0.27%
Coconino
8
0.11%
Gila
4
0.05%
Graham
3
0.04%
Greenlee
3
0.04%
Mohave
3
0.04%
Navajo
2
0.03%
Yavapai
2
0.03%
Yuma
2
0.03%
Apache
1
0.01%
La Paz
0
0%
Total
7,547
100%

Response Submittals Collected at Meetings

Coronado welcomed the submittal of comments at all nine public meetings. The majority of public comments submitted at the meetings were form letters at the first open house (Tucson) and at the last hearing (also Tucson). Table 10 lists the comments received and the attendance at each public meeting.

Table 10. Comments Received at the Scoping Meetings
Event
Comment Submittals Received
No. of People Signed In
Open House, Tucson
1,540
(77 unique letters, 1,463 form letters)
208
Open House, Green Valley
104
259
Open House, Patagonia
54
182
Open House, Vail
114
211
Open House, Sahuarita
20
56
Open House, Elgin
14
67
Hearing, Elgin
65
(41 oral, 24 written)
222
Hearing, Sahuarita
63
(49 oral, 14 written)
209
Hearing, Tucson
4,508
(79 oral, 127 unique letters, 4,302 form letters)
429

SUMMARY OF FUTURE STEPS IN THE EIS PROCESS

Following the content analysis (described in the upcoming two scoping reports), Coronado will develop a range of preliminary alternatives that will be evaluated to determine which alternatives should be studied in detail in the EIS. Once the alternatives have been developed, the studies and level of detail to be addressed for each of the issues will be determined. Data and information will be compiled from existing sources, and, in some cases, new data will be collected. Then, the impacts that could result from implementing any of the alternatives will be analyzed, and measures to mitigate anticipated impacts will be identified. The findings will be documented in a Draft EIS. The Draft EIS will be made available for public review and is currently scheduled for publication in November 2009. The availability of the Draft EIS will be announced in the Federal Register, as well as in local and regional media. Public comments will be accepted for a minimum of 90 days, during which public meetings, including hearings, will be held to receive comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIS. Coronado will review all the comments and consider them when preparing the Final EIS. The document may or may not be modified on the basis of public comments.

It is expected that the Final EIS will be made available for the public to review in July 2010. Coronado will decide at that time whether to publish a Record of Decision with the Final EIS or at a later time. The availability of the Final EIS and the Record of Decision will be announced in the Federal Register and in local and regional media.

Scoping Summary Report #1 - Appendix A - D

 

APPENDIX A

Regional Office Review of Scoping

File Code:
 1950  
Date:
 June 6, 2008
Route To:
        
Subject:
Regional Level NEPA Document Review Request, Rosemont Copper Project EIS
To:
 Regional Ecosystem Analysis and Planning Staff
         

I am requesting Regional-level NEPA documentation review for the Rosemont Copper Project EIS to further development of a quality NEPA process and resulting documents.  I believe that the Regions' incremental review of this project as it is being developed will allow recommendations to be meaningfully incorporated within the process.  At a minimum, I seek evaluation of compliance with law, regulation, and policy.  However, I am open to any suggestions for process improvements.

I specifically request review of the following processes and products:

  • Scoping process
  • Draft EIS Chapter 1 (purpose and need, proposed action, decision framework)
  • Draft EIS Chapter 1 (scoping content analysis and issue identification)
  • Draft EIS Chapter 2 (alternatives and mitigation)
  • Draft EIS Chapter 3 (specialist reports, analysis, and conclusions)
  • Pre-Draft EIS administrative record
  • Response to comments on DEIS
  • Final EIS
  • Decision document and the rationale for the decision

I would like my request for review of the scoping process to be completed prior to the July 14th close of the scoping period, should further actions be needed.  To facilitate this, I will be providing a summary of our scoping efforts under a separate letter.

The Forest will work with your desingated point of contact to define the requested review elements and timing.  The Forest will also conduct its own review of material before transmitting for Regional review, and will indicate such in the transmittal.

Please provide a primary contact for action related to this request.  The Forest's primary contact for this initial request will be Reta Laford, Deputy Forest Supervisor, at 520-388-8307.

 

/S/ JEANINE A. DERBY

JEANINE A. DERBY
Forest Supervisor

cc.  Jackie Andrew

 

File Code:
   1950-/2850   Date: July 15, 2008
Route To:
        
         
Subject:
Rosemont Copper Project Pre-decisional Regional Review - Scoping Process (Your 1950 Ltr of 6/6/08)
         
To:
 Forest Supervisor, Coronado National Forest      
         

Jackie Andrew, Regional National Environmental Policy Act Coordinator, has reviewed the summary of scoping efforts conducted to date regarding the Rosemont Copper Project.  Her review is enclosed.  We find that sufficient scoping activities have been conducted and should have provided the information necessary to identify further public involvement efforts, refine issues, select an interdisciplinary team, establish analysis criteria, and explore possible alternatives and their probable environmental effects.  It is appropriate for the initial scoping to conclude at this point and fro the Forest to proceed with further public involvement as the NEPA process proceeds.

 

/s/ Gilbert Zepeda, for
CORBIN L. NEWMAN, JR.
Regional Forester

Enclosure

cc. Reta Laford
Terest Ann Ciapusci
Beverly A. Everson
Mark E. Schwab
 
 
 

As requested, I reviewed the Chronology of Scoping Activities for the Rosemont Copper Project.  My review centered on the sufficiency of the scoping efforts to date and compliance with Law, Regulation and Policy.  Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act is governed by the Code of Federal Regualtions at 40 CFR.  In regards to scoping, 40 CFR Regulations For Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act states at:

§ 1506.6 Public involvement.

Agencies shall:

(a) Make diligent efforts to involve the public in preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures.

(b) Provide public notice of NEPA-related hearings, public meetings, and the availability of Environmental documents so as to inform those persons and agencies who may be interested or affected.

(1) In all cases the agency shall mail notice to those who have requested it on an individual action.

(2) In the case of an action with effects of national concern notice shall include publication in the Federal Register and notice by mail to national organizations reasonably expected to be interested in the matter and may include listing in the 102 Monitor.  An agency engaged in rulemaking may provide notice by mail to national organizations who have requested that notice regularly be provided.  Agencies shall maintain a list of such organizations.

(3) In the case of an action with effects primarily of local concern the notice may include:

(i) Notice to State and areawide clearinghouses pursuant to OMB Circular A-95 (Revised).

(ii) Notice to Indian trives when effects may occur on reservation.

(iii) Following the affected State's public notice procedures for comparable actions.

(iv) Publication in local newspapers (in papers of general circulation rather than legal papers).

(v) Notice through other local media.

(vi) Notice to potentially interested community organizations including small business associations.

(vii) Publication in newsletters that may be expected to reach potentially interested persons.

(viii) Direct mailing to owners and occupants of nearby or affected property.

(ix) Posting of notice on and off site in the area where the action is to be located.

(c) Hold or sponsor public hearings or public meetings whenever appropriate or in accordance with statutory requirements appliance to the agency.Criteria shall include whether there is:

(1) Substantial environmental controversy concerning the proposed action or substantial interest in holding the hearing.

(2) A request for a hearing by another agency with jurisdiction over the action supported by reasons why a hearing will be helpful.  If a draft environmental impact statement is to be considered at a public hearing, the agency whould make the statement available to the public at least 15 days in advance (unless the purpose o fhte hearing is to provide information for the draft environmental impact statement).

(d) Solicit appropriate information from the public.

(e) Explain in its procedures where interested persons can get information or status reports on environmental impact statements and other elements of the NEPA process.

(f) Make environmental impact statements, the comments received, and any underlying documents available to the public pursuant to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), without regard to the exclusion for interagency memoranda where such memoranda transmit comments of Federal agencies on the environmental impact of the proposed action.  Materials to be made available to the public shall be provided to the public without charge to the extent practicable, or at a fee which is not more than the actual costs of reproducing copies required to be sent to other Federal agencies, including the Council.

Agency policy is identified in the Forest Service Handbook.  The Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 Chapter 10 addresses Scoping as follows:

 

Although the Council on Environmental Quality (CEO) regulations require scoping only, for environmental impact statement (EIS) preparation. the Forest Service has broadened the concept to apply to all proposed actions.

 

Scoping is an integral part of environmental analysis. Scoping includes refining the proposed action, determining the responsible official and lead and cooperating agencies, identifying preliminary issues, and identifying interested and affected persons The results of scoping are used to identify public involvement methods, refine issues, select an interdisciplinary team, establish analysis criteria, and explore possible alternatives and their probable environmental effects.

Because the nature and complexity of a proposed action determine the scope and intensity of the required analysis, no single technique is required or prescribed. Except where required by statute or regulations, the responsible official may adjust or combine the various steps of the process outlined in this chapter to aid in the understanding of the proposed action and identified issues.

The following direction on scoping from the CEQ regulations applies to all scoping conducted by the Forest Service without regard to whether or not the results of the analysis is to be documented in an EIS or an environmental assessment (FA).

There shall be an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action. This process shall be termed scoping .. .

(a) As part of the scoping process the lead agency shall:

(1) Invite the participation of affected Federal, State, and local agencies, any affected Indian tribe, the proponent of the action, and other interested persons (including those who might riot be in accord with the action on environmental grounds), unless there is a limited exception under §1507.3(c). An agency may give notice in accordance with §1506.6.

I have reviewed The Chronology of Scoping provided for the Proposed Rosemont Copper Mine provided by the Coronado National Forest. The Code of Federal Regulation requirement to make diligent efforts to involve the public and to provide public notice of public meetings, hearings and the availability of NEPA related documents has been met. Further, the Coronado National Forest has utilized many of the methods for gathering comments suggested but not required by the Council on Environmental Quality. i find that the Coronado National Forest has taken the appropriate steps to invite participation of affected Federal, State and local agencies. affected Indian tribes, the action proponent and other interested and affected individuals, including those who may disagree with the proposal, The efforts to date should provide adequate information to identify further public involvement efforts, refine issues, select an interdisciplinary team, establish analysis criteria, and explore possible alternatives and their probable environmental effects. This complex and controversial project has had sufficient scoping.

 

/s/ Jackie Andrew
Regional NEPA Coordinator

 
 
APPENDIX B

Federal Register Notice of Intent
 

Federal Register /Vol. 73, No. 50 /Thursday, March 13, 2008 /Notices 13527

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Rosemont Copper Project, Coronado National Forest, Pima County, Arizona

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the President’s Council on Environmental Quality Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, announces its intent to prepare an environmental impact statement to document and publicly disclose the environmental effects of proposed construction and operation of an openpit mine on National Forest System land and the effects of any necessary amendments to the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. The proposed mining project would be located on 995 acres of private land and 3,670 acres of National Forest System land about 30 miles southeast of Tucson, Arizona, within Townships 18 and 19, Ranges 15 and 16, Gila and Salt River Meridian, Pima County, Arizona. Land under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, and the State of Arizona may be affected by certain activities associated with the proposed project. Production of 234 million pounds of copper, 4.5 million pounds of molybdenum, and 2.7 million ounces of silver is estimated annually over a period of approximately 20 years.

DATES: To be given full consideration during this National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review, written and oral comments concerning the scope of the environmental impact statement (EIS) analysis must be received by the Coronado National Forest (Forest) within 30 days following the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Written and oral comments may also be submitted during open houses that will be held by the Forest Service as follows:

1. March 18, 2008, 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., Pima Community College, Desert Vista Campus, 5901 South Calle Santa Cruz, Tucson, Arizona;

2. March 19, 2008, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., Canoa Hills Recreation Center, 3660 South Camino del Sol, Green Valley, Arizona; and

3. March 20, 2008, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., Patagonia Union High School, Highway 82, Patagonia, Arizona.

A Draft EIS (DEIS) for the Rosemont Copper Project (Project) is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in March 2009, at which time EPA will publish a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIS in the Federal Register. The NOA will begin a period of public review of the DEIS that will extend 45 days from the date of publication of the NOA in the Federal Register. The Final EIS (FEIS) and a Record of Decision (ROD) are scheduled to be completed in November 2009.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this notice may be mailed or hand-delivered to ATTN: Ms. Beverley Everson, Geologist, Coronado National Forest, 300 W. Congress St., Tucson, Arizona 85701. Comments may be also be submitted by facsimile to (520) 388– 8305 and by electronic mail (e-mail) to comments-southwesterncoronado@ fs.fed.us. Postal envelopes and the subject line of email and facsimiles should include the words ‘‘Rosemont Copper Project EIS.’’ Addresses for open house meetings are given above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the Rosemont Copper Project (Project), please contact Ms. Beverley Everson in writing at the address above or by telephone at (520) 388–8428. Questions on the Forest Service NEPA process may be directed to Ms. Andrea Wargo Campbell, Forest NEPA Coordinator, at the same address and telephone (520) 388–8352.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Project area is located on the Nogales Ranger District, Coronado National Forest, in the northern Santa Rita Mountains in Pima County, Arizona, where production of copper began in the 1880s and continued until 1951. Although several exploration projects have been undertaken since then, there has been no recent production of copper ore. In the past few years, a significant increase in the value of copper has made mining of certain claims in the area economically viable.

The Project is proposed by the Rosemont Copper Company (Company), a subsidiary of Augusta Resource Corporation, which acquired the Rosemont Mine property in 2005. In July 2007, the Company submitted a Mine Plan of Operations (MPO), including a reclamation plan, to the Forest, requesting approval to construct and operate ore-mining and related facilities on and adjacent to National Forest System (NFS) land in Pima County, Arizona.

There are 132 patented lode claims, 850 unpatented lode claims, and 14 parcels of fee land in the Project area. Lode deposits that would be mined as part of the Project are, for the most part, on Company (private) property. Most unpatented claims were staked on Federal land managed by the Forest Service; however, a few of these claims in the northwest portion of the property are on Federal land managed by the BLM.

Proposed Action

The EIS will disclose the potential environmental and social impacts of (1) Approval by the Forest Service of an MPO and reclamation plan that addresses construction and operation of an open-pit mine and related facilities on claims held by the Company, and (2) amendment of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), if necessary, to allow specific mining activities to be undertaken on NFS land. Connected actions related to the MPO (e.g., construction of roads, utilities) will also be evaluated in the EIS, regardless of whether they are proposed to be undertaken on NFS land. Impacts of reasonably foreseeable actions in the Project area will be considered in combination with the impacts of the Project to estimate the potential cumulative impacts of Project implementation.

The Project would be undertaken on a mosaic of privately owned and Federally managed land. Extraction of ore from an approximately 2,900-footdeep open-pit mine would be conducted primarily on private land. Processing, waste management, and other support facilities are proposed to be located on the Forest, and project infrastructure, such as utilities, could be located on BLM and state land. Access to mining claims would originate on State Highway 83 east of the property. A new access road is proposed.

Project-related activities to be addressed in the EIS include, but are not be limited to, the following:

Construction, operation and reclamation of an open-pit copper, silver and molybdenum mine primarily on private land.

Construction, operation, and reclamation of an ore-processing plant, tailings, waste rock and leach facilities on NFS land adjacent to the mine.

Construction and operation of infrastructure, such as utilities and their corridors, on non-NFS land. b Construction of a new access road, leach field, retention structures, wells, ore transportation systems, and test reclamation plots.

Use of existing roads, new road construction, and maintenance of both.

Labor requirements for construction, operation, processing, and reclamation.

Implementation of mitigation to avoid or minimize impacts;

Closure, reclamation and maintenance of the mine and related facilities.

Resource monitoring during construction, operation, and reclamation.

The Forest Service will serve as the lead agency in the preparation of the EIS, in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (CEQ) at 40 CFR 1501.6, and will be responsible for compliance with the NEPA, CEQ regulations, Forest Service NEPA directives, and various resourceprotection laws and regulations. Other agencies, such as the BLM, State of Arizona, and Pima County, may be invited to participate in the NEPA review as cooperating agencies, depending on their jurisdiction and/or expertise, and in accordance with CEQ NEPA regulations.

Purpose of and Need for Action

The purpose of the proposed Forest Service action is to grant permission to the Company to use NFS land for certain activities related to operation of the Rosemont Mine. The agency’s need for action is based on statutes and policy that govern mining on NFS land.

Most NFS land is subject to the location of certain minerals under the Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 U.S.C. 21–54, et seq.), and the directives in Forest Service Manual 2800. Prospecting, locating, and developing the mineral resources on NFS land are also subject to other rules and regulations. These include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. The 1897 Organic Administration Act (30 Stat. 11, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 473–475, 477–482, 551) grants the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to regulate the occupancy and use of NFS lands. It provides the public with the continuing right to conduct mining activities under general mining laws and in compliance with rules and regulations applicable to NFS lands. It also recognizes the rights of miners and prospectors to access NFS lands for prospecting, locating and developing mineral resources.

2. The 1960 Multiple-Use Sustained- Yield Act (74 Stat. 215; 16 U.S.C. 528– 531) requires that NFS lands be administered in a manner that includes consideration of the relative values of various resources as part of management decisions and specifically provides that nothing in the Act be construed to affect the use or administration of the mineral resources on NFS lands.

3. The 1970 Mining and Minerals Policy Act (84 Stat. 1876; 30 U.S.C. 21a) established the Federal Government’s policy for mineral development, ‘‘* * * to foster and encourage private enterprise in the development of economically sound and stable industries and in the orderly development of domestic resources to help assure satisfaction of industrial, security, and environmental needs’’.

4. Regulations at Title.36, Code of Federal Regulations, part 228A, set forth rules and procedures governing the use of NFS lands in conjunction with operations authorized by general mining laws. Part 228.3(a) specifically addresses the development of mineral resources.

Preliminary Identification of Issues

Based on a preliminary review of the proposed action by Forest resource specialists, the following potential issues were identified:

Effects on the economy, public services, quality of life and other community resources in Pima County, Tucson, and nearby communities;

Effects on the quality and availability of surface water groundwater resources;

Effects on vegetation and wildlife, including those having special-status designations by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Forest Service, Region 3 Regional Forester; and Forest Plan;

Effects on soils and geology;

Effects on aesthetic resources, including Forest visual quality objectives and State Highway 83, a statedesignated scenic highway;

Effects on archaeological, historic, and cultural resources, including Native American interests and values;

Effects on Forest recreational use and compatibility with other land uses;

Effects of increased traffic on local roads and transportation systems;

Effects of mining and processing and vehicle traffic on;

Effects of noise on nearby residents, Forest users, and sensitive wildlife.

The preceding list is subject to change, based on future comments received from the public and resource agencies.

Responsible Official

Ms. Jeanine Derby, Forest Supervisor, Coronado National Forest, will be the Responsible Official who prepares the Record of Decision (ROD) at the conclusion of this NEPA review. The Forest address is provided above.

Nature of NEPA Decision To Be Made

Based on the results of the NEPA analysis, the Forest Supervisor’s ROD regarding the MPO and reclamation plan will recommend implementation of one of the following: (1) The proposed action and mitigation necessary to minimize or avoid adverse impacts; (2) an alternative to the proposed action and mitigation necessary to minimize or avoid adverse impacts, or (3) the noaction alternative. The ROD will also document the consistency of the proposed action with the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (1986, as amended) and approval of Proposed amendments to it.

National Forest Management Act Consistency

The Forest must ensure that the Project is consistent with the Forest Plan, which was prepared in accordance with direction in the National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1600). The Forest Plan provides land management guidance and direction to Forest managers in terms of Forest-wide and management-area-specific goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines, based on desired future conditions on the Forest. If implementation of the Project will require amendments to the Forest Plan, all proposed amendments will be evaluated for environmental effects in conjunction with the NEPA review of the Project.

Request for Comments on the NEPA Review

The Forest Service encourages citizens to express issues, concerns, and suggestions they may have about this proposed action. Comments should be directly related to issues associated with the proposed action, rather than general advocacy of or opposition to the project, to best assist us in the NEPA analysis. Although comments are welcome at any time during the NEPA review, they will be most useful to us if they are received within 30 days following the publication of this notice. If you have questions about this notice or the scoping process, please contact Ms. Beverley Everson, Geologist, Coronado National Forest, at telephone (520) 388– 8352 prior to submitting your comments.

Written comments may be mailed or hand-delivered to Ms. Everson at Coronado National Forest, 300 W. Congress St., Tucson, Arizona 85701; sent by facsimile to (520) 388–8305; or submitted by email to commentssouthwestern- coronado@fs.fed.us. Envelopes and the subject line of email and facsimiles should include the words ‘‘Rosemont Copper Project EIS.’’ Oral and written comments may also be submitted at the open houses listed above or in person at the Forest address above.

Please be advised that comments and personal information associated with them, such as names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record for this NEPA review. As such, they may be made available to a third-party in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. You may prefer to submit comments without including personal information. Or, you may request of the Forest Service that your personal information be exempted from release under the FOIA. You will subsequently be informed by the Forest Service whether or not your request qualifies for an exemption. If it does not, you will be afforded the opportunity to resubmit your comments without personal information or to withhold them altogether.

Early Notice of the Importance of Public Participation in the NEPA Process

Following the 30-day scoping period announced in this notice, the Forest Service will prepare a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). Upon completion, the DEIS will be made available for a 45-day public review and comment period that will begin on the date that the EPA publishes an NOA of the DEIS in the Federal Register. The Forest Service believes that, at this early stage, it is important to provide the public with notice about several court rulings related to public participation in the NEPA environmental review process.

First, reviewers of a DEIS must structure their participation in the NEPA review so that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to the reviewer’s position and contentions [Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Com. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978)]. Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the DEIS stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) may be waived or dismissed by the courts [City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages. Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wise. 1980)]. Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those parties who are interested in this proposed action participate before the close of a public comment period so that substantive comments and objections are available to the Forest Service in a timely manner that will allow them to be meaningfully considered and subsequently addressed in the FEIS.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns about the proposed action, comments on a DEIS should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific line numbers, pages, and/or chapters of the DEIS. Comments may address the adequacy of the DEIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated an discussed in it. For comments of this nature, reviewers may choose to refer to CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1503.3.

Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record of this NEPA review and will be available for public inspection unless exempted from such.

(Authority: 40 CFR parts 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, section 21).

Authorization: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321–4346); Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500–1508); U.S. Department of Agriculture NEPA Policies and Procedures (7 CFR part 1 b).

February 28, 2008.

Jeanine A. Derby,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. E8–4780 Filed 3–12–08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M
 
 
APPENDIX C

 


Federal Register Revised Notice of Intent
 

Federal Register /Vol. 73, No. 83 /Tuesday, April 29, 2008 /Notices 23181

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Rosemont Copper Project, Coronado National Forest, Pima County, AZ

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Revised notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: On March 13, 2008, the USDA Forest Service, Coronado National Forest, published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Rosemont Copper Project (73 Federal Register 13527). This revised NOI advises the public of a change in the duration of the period during which the Forest Service will accept comments on the scope of the Rosemont Copper Project EIS. It also provides the locations for three public hearings at which oral testimony will be taken, along with written comments. All other information given in the original NOT will remain the same until further notice is given.

Public hearing dates and locations are as follows:

• May 12, 2008 in Elgin, Arizona.
• June 7, 2008 in Sahuarita, Arizona.
• June 30, 2008 in Tucson, Arizona.

DATES: The NOI published on March 13, 2008, advises the public that written and oral comments concerning the scope of the ETS analysis must be received by the Forest Service within 30 days following the date of publication of the NOI in the Federal Register. This duration of the scoping period has been extended by the Forest Service from 30 days to 120 days. Thus, the scoping period for the EIS will conclude on July 14, 2008. All written and oral public comments must be received by that date to be given full consideration during the EIS analysis.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about this notice, please contact Ms. Beverley A. Everson, Team Leader, at (520) 388–8300.

Dated: April 23, 2008.

Jeanine A. Derby,
Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. E8–9307 Filed 4–28–08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M
 
 
APPENDIX D

Cornoado Comment Form
 
YOUR COMMENTS ARE IMPORTANT!

PUBLIC COMMENTS
FOR THE
PROPOSED ROSEMONT COPPER PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
If you would like to make a comment or be added to our mailing list, please fill out this form and hand it to any of our staff or mail it to the address provided.  You are also welcome to write a letter or send e-mail to: comments-southwestern-cornado@fs.fed.us.  Thank you!
   
COMMENT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NAME: __________________________________________    
EMAIL: __________________________________________    
ADDRESS: ________________________________________    
______________________________________________________    
       
PLEASE ADD ME TO THE MAILING LIST (circle one):
YES
NO
Please be advised that comments and personal information associated with them, such as names and addresses, become part of the Administrative Record for this NEPA review.  As such, they may be made available to a third-party upon request under the authority of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Personally identifying information is protected by the Privacy Act.  If you do not wish for your personal information to be released under the FOIA, you may choose not to include it with your comments.  Alternatively, you may request an exemption from FOIA with your comment submittal.  Should you choose the latter, you would be informed by the Forest Service as to whether or not your request qualifies for an exemption.  If it does not, you would be afforded the opportunity to resubmit your comments without personal information or to withhold them altogether.
       
       
       
 
How to Comment Effectively

To be effective, comments should be specific and factual. Remember, the purpose of this scoping is to identify significant issues related to the proposed operation, and issues to be considered in the Environmental Impact Process )EIS).

The format for commenting is up to you to choose. Comment forms are available, but not required. Send comments by mail, email, or hand-deliver to the Forest SErvice before the public scoping period ends on July 14, 2008.

Below are several tips for making effective comments.

  • Be brief so the reviewer won't miss the point of your comment.
  • Be specific so the reviewer clearly understands your concerns

    • Statements such as "I am concerned about the amount of additional traffic this will cause" are useful in generating issues that can be analyzed.
    • Statements such as "Don't do this" or "I like this" are not useful in generating issues that can be analyzed.
  • The better you understand the proposal, the more focused and site-specific your comments will be.
  • Your comments must be realistic and feasible.
  • Remember, this is the time to identify concerns AND opportunities.

The public comment period is the beginning of the EIS process and represents the foundation of the analysis.  Your comments are an important input to the analysis of the social and natural environment.