Leaching Facilities Design

Rosemont Copper

June 2007
Leaching Facilities Design
Rosemont Copper

Prepared for:
Augusta Resource Corporation
4500 Cherry Creek South Drive, Suite #1040
Denver, Colorado 80246
(303) 300-0138
Fax (303) 300-0135

Prepared by:

3031 West Ina Road

Tucson, Arizona 85741
(520) 297-7723
Fax (520) 297-7724

Tetra Tech Project No. 320614

June 2007
Leaching Facilities Design Augusta Resource Corporation

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1
1.1 General.................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................ 2
2.1 General.................................................................................................................. 2
2.2 Ore Production ...................................................................................................... 2
2.3 Leach Pad Site ...................................................................................................... 2
2.4 Solution Collection Ditch and Ponds ..................................................................... 3
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS........................................................................................................... 4
3.1 General.................................................................................................................. 4
3.2 Surface and Subsurface Conditions ...................................................................... 4
3.3 Climatology............................................................................................................ 5
3.4 Surface Water Hydrology ...................................................................................... 5
3.5 Site Geology .......................................................................................................... 5
3.6 Site Seismicity ....................................................................................................... 6
4.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSES ............................................................................................ 8
4.1 General.................................................................................................................. 8
4.2 Slope Stability........................................................................................................ 8
4.2.1 General .................................................................................................................. 8
4.2.2 Stability Analyses Parameters ............................................................................... 8
4.2.3 Stability Analyses Results...................................................................................... 8
4.3 Water Balance and Design Flows ......................................................................... 8
4.3.1 General .................................................................................................................. 8
4.3.2 Pond Sizing ............................................................................................................ 9
4.3.3 Water Balance Results .......................................................................................... 9
4.3.4 Process Design Flows ......................................................................................... 10
4.4 Liner Design ........................................................................................................ 10
4.4.1 General ................................................................................................................ 10
4.4.2 Composite Liner Parameters ............................................................................... 10
4.4.3 Geomembrane Liner Selection ............................................................................ 11
4.4.4 Liner Testing ........................................................................................................ 11
4.5 Pad Drain Design ................................................................................................ 11
4.5.1 General ................................................................................................................ 11
4.5.2 Pad Drain Pipes and Fill ...................................................................................... 11
4.5.3 Drain Rock Testing .............................................................................................. 12
5.0 CONSTRUCTION QUANTITIES ESTIMATE ................................................................. 13
6.0 GENERAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 14
7.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 15

Tetra Tech June 2007 i

Leaching Facilities Design Augusta Resource Corporation

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Predicted Yearly Ore Schedule ............................................................................. 2
Table 3.1: Summary of Insitu Permeability Test Results........................................................ 5
Table 4.1: Predicted Monthly Freshwater Makeup Requirements.......................................... 9

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Title Sheet and Location Map
Figure 2: General Facilities Arrangement
Figure 3: Phase 1 Leach Pad Layout and Grading Plan
Figure 4: Phase 1 Leach Pad Sections
Figure 5: Phase 1 Leach Pad Details
Figure 6: Phase 2 Leach Pad Layout and Grading Plan
Figure 7: Phase 2 Leach Pad Sections
Figure 8: Phase 2 Tie-in Plan & Details
Figure 9: Phase 1 Drain Pipe Layout, Sections & Details
Figure 10: Phase 2 Drain Pipe Layout, Sections & Details
Figure 11: Phase 1 Pond Layout Sections & Details
Figure 12: Phase 1 Pond Sections & Details
Figure 13: Geotechnical Investigation Plan

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Detailed Design Criteria
Appendix B Construction Quantities
Appendix C Engineering Analyses
Appendix C1 Water Balance and Pond Sizing Analyses
Appendix C2 Stability Analyses
Appendix C3 Pad Drain System Analyses
Appendix C4 Liner System Analyses
Appendix C5 Geotechnical Data

Tetra Tech June 2007 ii

Leaching Facilities Design Augusta Resource Corporation

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
This report presents the leaching facilities engineering analyses and design documents
provided by Tetra Tech, Mining and Manufacturing (Tetra Tech) to Augusta Resource
Corporation (Augusta) for the Rosemont Copper Project (Project).
The Project site is located approximately 30 miles southeast of Tucson, west of State Highway
83 on the east slope of the Santa Rita Mountains (Figure 1). In geographical terms, the
Rosemont Property location coordinates are approximately 31º 50’N and 110º 45’W. Access to
the Property can be gained from Interstate 10 to State Highway 83 south, then west on Forest
Road (FR) 231.
A feasibility-level crushing and plant facility design has been prepared by M3 Engineering (M3).
The location of the proposed open pit, crusher plant, solution process plant, and mill facilities
have been considered for tie-in to the leach pad and pond limits. General mine site and leach
facility layouts are shown on Figure 2.
Pertinent site information and meeting discussions with Augusta and M3 have been
incorporated into this feasibility design report, figures, and attachments. The detailed design
criteria list is included in Appendix A. The feasibility design construction quantity estimates are
included in Appendix B. The supporting engineering analyses for site conditions, leach pad
slope stability, water balance, liner system, and pad drainage system design are included in
Appendix C.
This report is part of a compendium of reports presenting the feasibility-level design of the
Project. The list of reports below present the results of field investigations, laboratory testing,
and engineering analyses and design activities carried out in support of the Project.
● Leaching Facility Design (Tetra Tech, June 2007)
● Dry Tailings Facility Design (Tetra Tech, June 2007)
● Site Water Management Plan (Tetra Tech, June 2007)
● Geotechnical Study Report (Tetra Tech, June 2007)
● Geologic Hazards Assessment (Tetra Tech, June 2007)
● Baseline Geochemical Characterization (Tetra Tech, June 2007)
● Reclamation and Closure Plan (Tetra Tech, June 2007)

Tetra Tech June 2007 1

Leaching Facilities Design Augusta Resource Corporation

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 General
Current plans by Augusta include copper leaching of approximately 50 million tons (Mt) of oxide
ore in an approximate 6 year leaching operation life concurrent with milling operations.
The leach pad is designed to accommodate the planned ore tonnage with a lined pad built in
one construction phase. The lined leach pad, collection ditch, and pond design, as well as the
solution pumping systems, and pipelines, will provide full containment of operational solutions
and the design storm event. References to site information and a detailed list of design criteria
and design approach information are presented in Appendix A.

2.2 Ore Production

The heap leach ore production schedule is variable with the maximum rate occurring in year 1
of the schedule. The current ore production schedule indicates a total of 50 Mt of oxide ore to
the leaching operation. The peak ore stacking rate is approximately 51,000 tons per day (tpd)
of Run-of-Mine (ROM) ore to the leach pad in Year 1 with no stockpiling of ore. Table 2.1
presents the ore stockpile schedule based on information provided by WRL Consulting.

Table 2.1: Predicted Yearly Ore Schedule

Time Oxide Leach Ore
Period (Year) Ktons Cumulative
Pre-Production 14,979 14,979
1 18,244 33,223
2 5,320 38,543
3 937 39,480
4 2,602 42,082
5 5,002 47,084
6 2,195 49,279

2.3 Leach Pad Site

Tetra Tech, Augusta, and M3 personnel selected the leach pad site during initial internal studies
for the Project. The site is located southeast of the planned open pit. Alternate sites were
considered for the heap leach operation and considerations and selection criteria are
documented (Vector 2006). A setback distance of 450 feet from the ultimate pit limit was
required by M3 for placement of the leaching operation.
The leach pad site includes a Phase 1 pad for up to 50 Mt of ore with an expansion pad with up
to 50 Mt of additional storage stacked to a maximum ore heap height of 300 feet. Figures 3
through 5 describe the leach pad layout, grading, sections for this phase. The Phase 2 pad is
included in anticipation of additional ore reserves. Figures 6 through 8 describe the leach pad
layout, grading, sections, details, and tie-in plans for Phase 2.
The lined leach pad will utilize gravity solution drainage via perforated drain pipelines to the
downhill perimeter berm and a collection ditch pipeline system to the pregnant leach solution
(PLS) pond. A schematic cross section of the Phase 1 leach pad is shown on Figure 4 with pad
drain pipe sections and details shown on Figure 9.

Tetra Tech June 2007 2

Leaching Facilities Design Augusta Resource Corporation

The Phase 1 leach pad and pond limits include approximately 522,000 cubic yards of site
grading cut/fill to achieve positive drainage to the ponds, provide suitable slopes and surfaces
for geomembrane lining, and to allow for a relatively level surface for downstream heap stability.
Temporary diversion ditches are not required as the heap layout utilizes natural drainage
boundaries to a large extent.
Both pad phases drain by gravity flow to the collection pipe network and the downhill lined
collection ditch and PLS pond. The Phase 1 and Phase 2 leach pad and pond site grading limits
are shown on Figures 3 and 6.

2.4 Solution Collection Ditch and Ponds

The lined collection ditch contains solid collection pipelines along the downhill toe heap limits for
gravity drainage in a lined channel to the double lined PLS pond. The solid pipelines (primary
containment) together with the composite lined collection ditch (secondary containment) provide
double containment of solutions from the leach pad and prevent ponding of solution flows in the
collection ditch. The collection ditch pipeline sections and details are shown on Figures 9 and
10. The collection pipe network is divided into several cells or drainage areas per leach pad
phase and allows for solution monitoring of separate areas of the heap. The pad grading and
natural terrain will separate flows into these cells to a large extent therefore internal cell divider
berms will not be required.
In addition to 24 hours of standby drain down flows, the double lined PLS pond is sized to store
up to 8 hours of operational flows. Any PLS leakage through the top pond liner will be detected
in the underlying leak detection system, and the leakage will be contained by the bottom pond
liner until the pond can be drained for liner repair. In addition, a pump is planned for installation
between the two liners so collected leakage can be evacuated as necessary.
Temporary solution overflows from the double lined PLS pond, if filled to capacity, will discharge
into the single lined storm pond during any upset operational or storm overflow events. Average
year storm events will likely be fully contained within the PLS pond. This assumes the operating
PLS pond level can be maintained at far less than 8 hours of solution storage.
The storm pond overflow solutions will be temporarily stored in the single-lined pond limits for up
to 72 hours before being pumped back to the PLS or barren (raffinate) pond for reuse in the
heap leach operation. The ponds include a corner sump area lower than the pond bottom levels
to assist in low pond level pumping operations. Rub sheets will be placed over the pond liners in
the sump corner areas to protect the pond liners during pumping operations. The Phase 1 lined
pond system layout is shown on Figure 11. Pond sections and details are shown on Figure 12.
In addition to the solution collection ponds, a raffinate pond is located nearby. This pond will
contain the raffinate solutions from the solvent extraction operations prior to being pumped to
the drip emitters on the leach dump. Because all solutions are pumped to this pond and
discharge into the pond is not subject to storm flows, the raffinate pond is separated from the
other ponds by a berm. The raffinate pond was sized for 4 hours of operational flows resulting
in a storage capacity of 8 acre-feet (ac-ft).

Tetra Tech June 2007 3

Leaching Facilities Design Augusta Resource Corporation

3.0 SITE CONDITIONS

3.1 General
This section provides a summary of surface and subsurface conditions, climatology, surface
water hydrology, site geology, and seismicity. The proposed Phase 1 pad and process pond
area is located southeast of the planned open pit within a tributary of the Barrel drainage basin.
The Phase 2 pad expansion is located in the Wasp drainage just south of the Phase 1 pad area.
The Phase 1 leach pad area is characterized by terrain sloping generally north and east from
the pit area to the Barrel drainage which runs generally north-south in this area. A network of
small arroyos feed the main Barrel drainage. The leach pad limits follow the major ridgelines
delineating several of the arroyo networks.
Vegetation at the proposed leach pad site consists of a poor coverage of native grasses and
shrubs. Groundwater levels observed within the floodplain of the Barrel drainage range from 46
feet to 81 feet below the existing ground surface based on borehole observations. Groundwater
level conditions in the pad area is anticipated to be deep, at more than 100 feet below the
existing ground surface. Existing structures in the proposed leach pad study area include the
Rosemont camp located in the northeast portion of the site, and a small power line supplying
power to the camp.
A geotechnical investigation was performed under the direction of Tetra Tech to characterize
the site soil and rock conditions and provide engineering parameters for feasibility design. This
investigation consisted of 10 geotechnical borings, 33 test pits, and over 18 miles of geophysical
survey lines located throughout the site. Additionally, several rock and soils samples were sent
for laboratory testing. Results of the site investigation program are presented in the
Geotechnical Study Report (Tetra Tech, June 2007).
A total of 4 of the geotechnical borings, 13 test pits, and approximately 2.3 miles of geophysical
survey were completed within the vicinity of the leach pad and ponds. Figure 13 shows the
geotechnical site investigation plan and includes locations of the completed geophysical surveys
and completed and proposed borings and test pits.

3.2 Surface and Subsurface Conditions

Surface soils within the proposed leach pad area are comprised primarily of alluvial deposits in
the drainages and floodplains. The thickness of the alluvium ranges from 20 feet to 80 feet
based on borehole and geophysical data. The two major rock units found within the area are the
Willow Canyon and Apache Canyon Formation. Locally, the Willow Canyon Formation consists
of a fine to coarse grained arkosic sandstone to conglomerate and the Apache Canyon
Formation is a series of calcareous siltstones and sandstones. Bedrock depth varies from 80 ft
within the drainages and floodplains to at ground surface within the hills. Where topsoil is
present, depths vary from 1 foot to 2 feet across the site.
Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) conducted during geotechnical borings indicates medium
dense materials (SPT blow count of 10 to 30) near the surface and very dense materials (SPT
blow count of 50) from 20 to 40 ft in depth. Rock Quality Designation (RQD) measurements of
Apache Canyon Formation varied greatly from 10 to 100% with an average value of 62%. RQD
values for the Willow Canyon Formation located within the leach pad area, are not currently
available. However, a geotechnical boring approximately 1 mile to the north recorded that the
RQD values in Willow Canyon material ranged from 0 to 55% with an average of 20%.

Tetra Tech June 2007 4

Leaching Facilities Design Augusta Resource Corporation

In-situ permeability testing was conducted in the boreholes using the double packer and falling
head method at depths ranging from 19 to 63 feet. The results indicate fairly low permeability
surficial soils (alluvium) with values between 2x10-4 to 5x10-5 centimeters per second (cm/s) and
bedrock permeabilities in the 4x10-5 cm/s range. Table 3.1 lists results of field permeability
testing completed within the heap leach pad footprint.
Table 3.1: Summary of Insitu Permeability Test Results

Testing Estimated
Borehole No. Geologic Unit
Interval (ft) Permeability (cm/s)
VABH-06-05 0-18.7 1.65x10-4 Alluvium
Apache Canyon Formation -
VABH-06-04 53.5-63.1 4.3 x10-5 Fine grained sandstone and
siltstone (contact at ~55.3')

3.3 Climatology
Meteorological records for the immediate vicinity of the Rosemont Project are of limited duration
and are available for a period covering 56 to 75 years ago. The U.S. Forest Service obtained
measurements of rainfall and temperature at Rosemont during the period from August 1914 to
June 1931 (University of Arizona, 1977). The elevation of the meteorological station at
Rosemont was 4,800 feet above sea level. Daily temperature and precipitation at Helvetia,
located a few miles to the west at 4,400 feet elevation, are available through the Western
Regional Climate Center (WRCC, 2006) for the period from June 1916 through April 1950. More
recent meteorological records are available for weather stations in the region and provide a
basis for projecting climatic conditions for the Rosemont Project area. These weather stations
include: Canelo, located about 25 miles to the southeast at elevation of 5,010 feet; and Santa
Rita Experimental Range, located about 8 miles to the southwest at 4,300 feet.
More than half of the precipitation recorded at these stations fell during the summer months of
July, August, and September. The months with the least recorded precipitation are April, May,
and June. In general, annual precipitation has been less than average for the past 10 years,
resulting in severe drought conditions.

3.4 Surface Water Hydrology

Annual average precipitation for Rosemont, estimated by Sellers (University of Arizona, 1977)
for the period 1931 through 1970, was approximately 16 inches. Based on records available
from the Western Regional Climate Center (2006), average annual precipitation for Helvetia for
the period 1916 through 1950 was 19.73 inches. For comparison to more recent information, the
average annual precipitation for Santa Rita Experimental Range for the period from 1971
through 2000 was 22.22 inches. Average annual precipitation for Canelo for the period 1971
through 2000 was 18.01 inches (Western Regional Climate Center, 2006).
For feasibility design purposes, average climate data from WRCC data were used for water
balance calculations and NOAA data was used to develop storm event precipitation depths.
Appendix C1 presents the hydrologic data and water balance analysis.

3.5 Site Geology

The proposed Rosemont mine site lies in the southwestern region of North America, specifically,
in the Basin and Range physiographic province. The Basin and Range is characterized by
relatively evenly spaced, subparallel mountain ranges separated by broad, thick alluviated
basins, the boundaries of which are defined by high-angle extensional faults. This irregularly

Tetra Tech June 2007 5

Leaching Facilities Design Augusta Resource Corporation

shaped region encompasses an area greater than 1,500 kilometers in length and up to
1,000 kilometers in width extending from the southern portions of Idaho and Oregon through the
majority of Nevada, parts of western Utah, eastern California, western and southern Arizona,
southern New Mexico, and northern Mexico.
The Santa Rita Mountains comprise a relatively small horst consisting of Paleozoic/Mesozoic-
age rocks bounded on the east by the Davidson Canyon graben and a small uplifted range
known as the Empire Mountains.
As previously mentioned, the proposed leach pad site is underlain by rocks of the Early
Cretaceous Willow Canyon and Apache Canyon formations. These formations consist of
limestones, siltstones, mudstones, sandstones, and conglomerates. There are known faults
underlying the heap leach site.

3.6 Site Seismicity

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ, 1998) has published guidelines for
mining project design criteria in a publication entitled “Arizona Mining Guidance Manual, Best
Available Demonstrated Control Technology (BADCT).” This manual sets forth
recommendations for minimum standard design criteria with the interest of protecting
groundwater aquifers in the State of Arizona. Accordingly, the BADCT manual recommends
design criteria for seismic hazards as follows:
“The minimum design earthquake is the maximum probable earthquake (MPE).
The MPE is defined as the maximum earthquake that is likely to occur during a
100 year interval (80% probability of not being exceeded in 100 years) and shall
not be less than the maximum historical event. This design earthquake may
apply to structures with a relatively short design life (e.g., 10 years) and minimum
potential threat to human life or the environment.
Where human life is potentially threatened, the maximum credible earthquake
(MCE) should be used. MCE is the maximum earthquake that appears capable
of occurring under the presently known tectonic framework.”
In accordance with these recommendations, two distinct levels of ground motion are defined for
the proposed Rosemont site: the MPE and the MCE. The maximum ground acceleration
expected at the proposed Rosemont mine site is 0.326g associated with a maximum credible
earthquake on the Santa Rita fault zone, where g is the acceleration due to gravity. Accordingly,
the MCE design peak ground acceleration (PGA) equals 0.326g. The site seismicity study is
presented in the Geologic Hazards Assessment (Tetra Tech, June 2007).
The MPE definition requires the larger of the maximum historical event or one having a return
period of approximately 448 years, corresponding to the 80% probability of non-exceedance
event in 100 years. The seismic hazard curve for the Rosemont site indicates that the 80%
probability of non-exceedance event in 100 years corresponds to a peak ground acceleration of
0.045g. In comparison, the largest earthquake ground motion recorded in the Project area was
associated with the 1887 Bavispe, Mexico event. The estimates of peak ground acceleration
presented in the Geologic Hazards Assessment indicate that this event would result in an
acceleration of 0.036g. Therefore, the design MPE for the proposed Rosemont mine site would
be the greater of these two accelerations or 0.045g.
The leach pad ore stack will be designed as a low hazard facility, with fully drained ROM ore
placed in controlled lifts and wetted (partially saturated with no excess pore pressure conditions)
during leaching. The wetted ore lifts will densify under successive controlled lift placement
operations, resulting in an increase in the lower lift fill strength over time. Considering the fully

Tetra Tech June 2007 6

Leaching Facilities Design Augusta Resource Corporation

drained conditions within the ore heap fill, and the low hazard nature of the facility over an
approximate 19 year facility life, the MPE has been selected for the feasibility design.

Tetra Tech June 2007 7

Leaching Facilities Design Augusta Resource Corporation

4.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSES

4.1 General
The following sections present the engineering analyses conducted for the Rosemont leach pad
design which included slope stability, water balance, liner selection, and pad drain design.

4.2 Slope Stability

4.2.1 General
The leach pad slope stability analyses included an evaluation of the planned foundation, pad
liner, and ore stack conditions, as shown on Figures 3 and 4. The stability analyses considered
maximizing the ROM ore tonnage for construction and operation with stable stacked heap
slopes on the pad liner system. Final heap slopes for closure may require some slope flattening
for long term erosion and revegetation conditions, but were not considered for this feasibility
design.

4.2.2 Stability Analyses Parameters

The assumed parameters for the ore heap slope stability analyses were developed from a site
review of surface and subsurface conditions, literature review information, planned construction,
and past leach pad construction performance experience.
The planned ore stack limits were evaluated for both static and pseudo-static (earthquake)
conditions using the Maximum Probable Earthquake (MPE) and a 50% horizontal ground
acceleration factor for the analyses.

4.2.3 Stability Analyses Results

Adequate factors of safety at 1.3 static and 1.1 psueudo-static were obtained from the stability
analyses, with the slope geometry as described in this section. (See Appendix C2.)
The slope stability analyses indicate the heap stacking operations can be constructed with
stable overall 2H:1V slopes to a total height of 300 feet. The actual ore heap slopes will include
30 foot ROM ore lifts stacked at the angle-of-repose (estimated at about 1.3H:1V) with a
setback bench as required to develop the overall slope angle. The analysis is based on the
maximum ore stack section through the downstream portion of the Phase 1 configuration.
Steeper ore stack slopes may be acceptable in uphill areas of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 ore
stack. Optimization of slopes will be performed during final design, as required.
Some surficial slumping or raveling of the individual angle-of-repose ore lift slopes may occur
during storm runoff or earthquake events. Considering the low hazard nature of the fully drained
granular ore heap fill structure, and the low probability of an earthquake event at this site during
the relatively short life of the mine project, the pad liner system should remain intact and the
surficial slope erosion, if any, can be controlled by periodic maintenance around the perimeter of
the pad.

4.3 Water Balance and Design Flows

4.3.1 General
The leach pad water balance evaluation included available climatology data, estimated ore
moisture and production conditions, and planned construction for the Phase 1 leach pad and

Tetra Tech June 2007 8

Leaching Facilities Design Augusta Resource Corporation

pond operations. A spreadsheet computer model was developed for predicting the average
yearly water balance for storm pond sizing. Leaching operations were simulated for average
precipitation conditions to validate the PLS pond sizing and to estimate the monthly fresh water
make-up requirements for the heap leach facility and for establishing the maximum process
design flows. The water balance and pond sizing analyses are presented in Appendix C1.

4.3.2 Pond Sizing

Water balance calculations included sizing of the ponds proposed for the heap leach facility,
including the PLS pond, raffinate pond, and storm pond.
The PLS pond is sized to store up to 8 hours of operational flows, including 24 hours of standby
drain down flows. Temporary solution overflows from the PLS pond, if filled to capacity, will
discharge to the storm pond during any upset operational conditions or storm overflow events.
The raffinate pond was sized for 4 hours of operational flows, resulting in a storage capacity of 8
acre-feet (ac-ft) assuming a minimum operational depth of 10 feet.
The water balance results indicate a required PLS Pond storage capacity of 48 ac-ft and a
Phase 1 storm pond storage capacity of approximately 50 ac-ft. All ponds are designed with a
minimum 3 foot dry freeboard above design pond levels.

4.3.3 Water Balance Results

The water balance analyses indicate that the average year precipitation conditions result in a
makeup water requirement throughout the operational year. The total makeup water required in
an average year of precipitation is approximately 800 ac-ft of water corresponding to an average
flow rate of about 500 gallons per minute (gpm). The maximum makeup water rate occurs in the
month of June at up to 600 gpm. Table 4.1 presents the monthly makeup water requirements
predicted by the water balance model and were based on average monthly precipitation and
evaporation and the operating parameters presented herein and in Appendix C1.

Table 4.1: Predicted Monthly Freshwater Makeup Requirements

Month Ac-Ft gpm

Jan 57.4 419
Feb 55.0 445
Mar 65.5 478
Apr 69.9 528
May 79.3 579
Jun 79.1 597
Jul 71.0 518
Aug 70.0 511
Sep 67.3 507
Oct 66.0 482
Nov 59.9 451
Dec 56.8 414
Total 797.3 -
Average 66.4 494

Tetra Tech June 2007 9

Leaching Facilities Design Augusta Resource Corporation

It should be noted that the water balance results are very sensitive to the chosen ore field
capacity (drain down) moisture value. A value of 7% was used based on previous experience
with this ore type and material size. The water balance should be revisited upon final design to
incorporate retained ore moisture values obtained from the ongoing metallurgical column
testing.

4.3.4 Process Design Flows

Design PLS circulation rates were given by M3 as 2,500 gpm (nominal) and 3,000 gpm
(design). The water balance calculations indicate a required average raffinate flow rate of
approximately 2,900 to 3,100 gpm including evaporation and moisture retention within the ore.

4.4 Liner Design

4.4.1 General
The liner design considered the use of sodium bentonite geosynthetic clay liners (GCL) due to
the low quantity of offsite clay borrow materials available for the Phase 1 leach pad and pond
liner system. The GCL liner provides an equivalent 1 foot minimum thickness of 1 x 10-6 cm/sec
or lower permeability soil layer. The higher cost for GCL material can be offset by cost savings
in construction time due to the relatively rapid deployment of the GCL rolls during geomembrane
liner installation with no moisture conditioning or compaction required. The GCL surface
provides rock puncture protection to the overlying geomembrane liner and only requires a
smoothed and compacted subgrade surface to support the composite pad liner system.
The leach pad liner includes an overliner gravity drain fill and pipe system to minimize hydraulic
heads on the pad liner and reduce any risk of leakage. The PLS pond includes a double
geomembrane liner system with leak detection and bottom composite liner for monitoring and
containment of any leakage through the top pond liner. The single lined (composite liner) storm
pond will be dry except during for short periods during storm events or upset operational flows.
The storm pond will be drained within 72 hours to provide storm storage capacity throughout the
year. The leach pad and pond liner details are shown on Figures 5 and 12, respectively. The
pad drain system analysis is presented in Appendix C3.

4.4.2 Composite Liner Parameters

Some of the more important technical aspects in liner selection for this Project site include
geomembrane liner resistance to rock puncture, adequate liner friction strengths for slope
stability, elongation capacity to withstand earthfill and rock fill foundation settlements under high
heap loads, and long-term exposure to climatic conditions (temperature expansion and
contraction, wind forces, and UV sunlight exposure in the collection ditch and pond areas).
Settlement under the pad liner will be minimal with medium dense to dense overburden soils,
and the site grading fill will consist of fairly competent rocky materials placed in controlled lifts,
moisture conditioned, and compacted by heavy vibratory rollers. The compacted soil and rock
fill should settle at approximately 1 percent or less based on past settlement experience on rock
fill dams under similar planned placement and fill load conditions.
The proposed composite liner system incorporates GCL beneath the geomembrane in place of
a compacted clay subliner. The GCL provides an equivalent 1 foot minimum thickness of 1 x
10-6 cm/sec or lower permeability soil layer. Appendix C4 presents the equivalency evaluation
of this system to the prescribed Arizona BADCT standard.

Tetra Tech June 2007 10

Leaching Facilities Design Augusta Resource Corporation

4.4.3 Geomembrane Liner Selection

A 60 mil (1.5 millimeter) Linear Low Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) geomembrane liner has
been selected for the leach pad based on engineering performance requirements and past
design and construction experience. The pad liner will have double textured surfaces for
stability. The collection ditch, pond spillway, and PLS and storm pond top liners will include 80
mil (2.0 millimeters) single textured sheet High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane
liners (textured side facing up for traction) with the secondary PLS and raffinate pond liner to
include a composite 60 mil LLDPE smooth sheet geomembrane liner in contact with the
underlying GCL.
Conveyor rub sheets will be provided by the owner over the top pond liners in the sump corners
as needed for any foot traffic or pump related operations. A leak detection geonet, sump, and
well pipe will be included between the PLS pond top and bottom liner system with a submersible
pump installed within the leak detection well pipes in each pond sump corner.

4.4.4 Liner Testing

Large scale puncture tests have been completed on representative subsoil, GCL,
geomembrane liner, and overliner gravel. Representative samples of subgrade soil were
compacted into a mold and covered with GCL, LLDPE geomembrane, and drain fill gravel
produced from rock taken from the proposed quarry site. Tests were performed for both 60 mil
LLDPE at a normal stress of 260 pounds per square inch (psi) applied for 48 hours. The liner
did not show evidence of punctures when observed visually and when tested with a vacuum box
test with a negative pressure of 6 psi. Results of the liner puncture testing indicate verification
of the liner selection performance under simulated loading and site-specific conditions.
Large scale direct shear interface testing was performed on the liner system to provide
engineering parameters for heap slope stability. The results indicate a friction angle of 19
degrees for textured LLDPE liner to GCL interface and about 12 degrees for smooth LLDPE to
GCL interface. Appendix C5 presents the results of the liner testing.

4.5 Pad Drain Design

4.5.1 General
The leach pad drain design includes a 3 foot loose lift thickness of crushed minus 1.5 inch clean
ore supplemented by drain pipes above the pad liner for gravity drainage to the collection ditch
and ponds. The pad drain pipe design plan, sections, and details are shown on Figure 9. The
pad drain system analyses are presented in Appendix C3.
The leach pad is divided into several cells which generally follow the natural terrain drainage
with the bottom limits of each pad cell site graded to 3 percent toward the northeast corner of
the pad. Primary collector pipes convey flow to headers at the downgradient edge and allow for
operational monitoring of flows from each cell area. The Phase 2 leach pad will drain to pre-
installed pipes placed during Phase 1 construction.

4.5.2 Pad Drain Pipes and Fill

The corrugated and perforated drain pipe system includes a dual wall 18 inch diameter N-12 PE
header drain pipe along the downhill toe berm limits connected uphill to dual wall 8 inch
diameter N-12 PE primary pipes overlapping with a network of 4 inch diameter PE secondary
drain pipes placed at a 30 foot maximum pipe spacing. This arrangement maintains an average
hydraulic head of less than 20 inches on the pad liner system. The drain pipe system is sized to

Tetra Tech June 2007 11

Leaching Facilities Design Augusta Resource Corporation

handle the planned operational solution application flows, including 100 year storm event flows
over 24 hours.
A temporary quarry crushing circuit will require commissioning prior to stockpiling or direct
placement of a 3 feet thick drain fill cover over the pad liner and drain pipes in advance of
stacking operations. The pad liner system requires complete drain fill coverage as soon as
practical to avoid any potential wind movement damage. The overliner drain fill will also provide
liner and drain pipe protection during the initial ore lift placement operations.

4.5.3 Drain Rock Testing

Samples of material (silica-rich Arkose rock) were taken from the proposed quarry area located
within the pit limits for testing for suitability as liner cover drain fill. Appendix C5 presents the
results of the laboratory testing. The drain fill material was used in liner interface and puncture
testing (Section 4.4.4), and a sample was subjected to slake durability (ASTM D4644) testing
with sulfuric acid soaking to simulate acid leaching and verify chemical resistance to the
leachate solution. The slake durability test results indicate no loss of durability upon soaking in
0.5% sulfuric acid solution and minimal loss upon soaking in 5.0% solution strength. The results
of the testing indicate the material will exhibit negligible degradation under the expected
operational conditions and is suitable for drain rock fill.

Tetra Tech June 2007 12

Leaching Facilities Design Augusta Resource Corporation

5.0 CONSTRUCTION QUANTITIES ESTIMATE

Site grading cut and fill calculations were estimated using an Autocad Land Desktop computer
program and existing topography at 10 foot contour intervals. No bulk or shrink factors were
applied to the cut and fill estimates. The quantity calculations and details are presented in
Appendix B. Design plans, sections, and details for the feasibility quantity estimate are shown
on Figures 3 through 12.
Quantity estimates for the Phase 1 and Phase 2 pad limits include construction of the leach pad,
collection ditch, ponds, and uphill diversion systems. The leach pad, collection ditch, and pond
foundation preparation and site grading cut and fill quantities are included as a general
construction work item that will be constructed concurrently with both the pad and pond site
grading fill placement. Other quantity items, including the pad liner, pad drain cover, pond liners,
and pipelines, are separated into individual work items, as presented in Appendix B.

Tetra Tech June 2007 13

Leaching Facilities Design Augusta Resource Corporation

6.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

Recommendations are based on an evaluation of the findings of the site investigations noted
earlier. Due to the complexity and variability of natural earth and rock formations and materials,
significant variations may occur between or around the boring or geophysical test locations.
Because the test borings and geophysical test areas represent a very small statistical sampling
of subsurface conditions, it is possible that conditions may be encountered during construction
that are substantially different from those indicated by the site investigation results. In these
instances, design adjustments and construction modifications may be necessary. If conditions
other than those reported are noted during subsequent phases of the Project, Tetra Tech should
be notified and be given the opportunity to review and revise the current recommendations, if
necessary. Recommendations may not be valid if an adequate level of review or inspection is
not provided during construction.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Augusta Resource Corporation for
specific application to the area within this report. Any use of this report by a third party of this
report, or any reliance on or decisions made based on it, are the responsibility of such third
parties. Tetra Tech accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as
a result of decisions made or actions based on this report. This report has been prepared in
accordance with generally accepted engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or
implied, is made.

Tetra Tech June 2007 14

Leaching Facilities Design Augusta Resource Corporation

7.0 REFERENCES
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 1998, Arizona Mining Guidance Manual BADCT
(ADEQ Publication Number TB-04-01).

University of Arizona, 1977, An environmental inventory of the Rosemont area in southern

Arizona, Volume I: The present environment: Edited by Davis, R., and Callahan, J.R.

Vector Colorado, LLC, Conceptual Heap Leach Pad Design Layout, June 5, 2006.

Western Regional Climate Center, 2006, Arizona climate summaries:

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmaz.html, May 16, 2006.

Tetra Tech June 2007 15

FIGURES
 APPENDIX A
DETAILED DESIGN CRITERIA
Technical Memorandum

To: Troy Meyer

Cc: File
From: Joel Carrasco
Project No: 320614
Subject: Detailed Design Criteria – Rosemont Leaching Facility
Date: February 22, 2007

1.0 General
This section lists pertinent design criteria and planned approach information for the feasibility
design of the Augusta Rosemont copper leach pad and pond facilities. Pertinent design criteria and
approach information includes the following:

• pad and pond borrow development;

• pad and pond foundation preparation;
• pad liner system;
• pad drain cover system;
• ore stack construction;
• solution application;
• solution collection ditch;
• solution process ponds;
• diversion system; and
• solution return pump system.

2.0 Pad and Pond Borrow Development

Borrow development typically includes providing site grading fill for the leach pad, suitable soils
for a state-of-practice composite liner system, and a drain cover fill above the pad liner for
geomembrane liner protection and drainage of pregnant leach solutions by gravity flow to the
exterior process ponds. Pertinent borrow development criteria include the following:

Site Grading Fill Design will balance cuts and fills to the extent possible
for site grading. Import of borrow material may be

Tetra Tech
603 Park Point Drive, Suite 250, Golden, CO 80410
Tel 303.217.5700 Fax 303.217.5705 www.tetratech.com
 necessary from required excavations during site
development or pit pre-stripping activities

Moisture condition as required for soil compaction to

minimum 90 percent of maximum Modified Proctor dry
density (ASTM D-1557) or specified compactive effort
or performance specification for rock fills, as
determined by the engineer

Clayey Soil Fill Suitable borrow sources for clayey soil fill have not
been located on site. The design will utilize bentonite
Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL) in place of a
compacted clayey soil liner for the pad and ponds

Liner Bedding Fill Liner bedding fill for GCL liner placement to be
relatively fine grained materials with no rocks larger
than 1.5 inches in the upper 6 inches of the fill.
Subgrade to be compacted to minimum 90 percent of
maximum Modified Proctor dry density (ASTM D-1557)
and rolled with minimum 10 tonne vibratory smooth
steel drum compactor to produce suitable surface for
GCL deployment

Drain Cover Fill Borrow source to be crushed waste rock from

identified quarry within pit limits screened as needed to
produce particle sizes between 1.5 inch and 0.5 inch
with less than 5% fines.

No moisture conditioning required

3.0 Pad and Pond Foundation Preparation

Foundation preparation includes removing vegetation and unsuitable materials for constructing
site grading fills and berms as listed below.

Vegetation Clear and grub vegetation (remove as part of stripping

excavation)

Structures Remove buildings and infrastructure at Rosemont

Camp. Plug any condemnation boreholes in top 100
ft depth within the lined leach pad, collection ditch and
pond limits

Surface Soils Strip and remove organic surface soils and vegetation
to approximate 6 inch depth within leach pad, pond
and process plant phase limits and place in temporary
topsoil stockpiles for final reclamation

Detailed Design Criteria 2

 Scarify, moisten, and recompact the stripped soil
surface to minimum 90 percent of maximum Modified
Proctor dry density (ASTM D-1557) prior to fill
placement

Bedrock cut or existing rock outcrop surface to be

cleared of loose rock fragments greater than 8 inches
and wetted in preparation for a transition fill cover as
needed for GCL liner placement

Underdrains Current leach pad layout extents to top of local

drainage boundaries with exception of small drainage
on western perimeter. French drain will be required in
this area to convey any water under the pad liner

Site Grading Construct pad phases and perimeter berms with site
grading cut and fill balance for gravity drainage to
solution collection ditch and PLS pond

Compact site grading fill and final cut surfaces to a

minimum 90 percent of Modified Proctor dry density
(ASTM D-1557)

Perimeter Berm 3-foot minimum height above pad grade

6-foot minimum crest width along side hill and up hill

sections

25-foot minimum road crest width along down hill side

adjacent to collection ditch

2H:1V maximum lined interior slopes, 1.5H:1V

maximum unlined exterior slopes

Interior Toe & Cell Berms Cell separation will utilize natural terrain drainage
areas within the pad area to the extent possible. Cell
berms, where required, to be 3 ft minimum height
above pad grade with 2 ft minimum crest width and
2H:1V maximum side slopes

4.0 Pad Liner System

The pad liner system provides an impervious boundary to contain leach solutions and protect the
underlying groundwater. The composite geomembrane and GCL composite system is the state of
practice in leach pad design where clayey soils are not available for constructing a compacted
clay sub-liner and meets Arizona BADCT requirements for site-specific conditions. Components
of the pad liner system are listed below.

Detailed Design Criteria 3

 Soil Liner Fill Geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) for leach pad and
process ponds (GSE-Gundseal or Bentomat-STM
bentonite GCL product or equivalent)

Minus 1.5 inch maximum rock particle size on final

compacted and smoothed subgrade surface in
preparation for GCL placement

Geomembrane Pad Liner 1.5 mm (60 mil) textured sheet LLDPE pad
geomembrane liner for ore slope stability

Liner Anchor Trench 2 ft wide by 2 ft minimum depth trench for liner backfill
anchorage

5.0 Pad Drain Cover System

The pad drain cover system provides liner protection from exposure to the climate, vehicle tracks,
foot traffic, and conveyor or haul truck ore placement. The drain cover also reduces hydraulic
heads on the pad liner when constructed in combination with supplemental drain pipes at a
spacing determined by the leaching solution application rate and the permeability characteristics
of the drain rock. Components of the pad drain cover system are listed below.

Drain Pipes 4 inch diameter corrugated and perforated

polyethylene (PE) lateral pipes in herringbone fashion
on 30 ft maximum centers (to be verified with
overdrain permeability testing)

8 inch diameter corrugated and perforated dual wall

N-12 PE collector pipes spaced as necessary to
handle the solution application flows plus estimated
flows from the design storm event

18 inch diameter corrugated and perforated dual wall

N-12 PE header pipe at downhill collection ditch to
route flows to pregnant pond

Drain Cover Fill 3 feet minimum thickness of minus 1.5 inch mine pit
ore crushed and screened as needed for drain cover
fill with less than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200
ASTM sieve size. Thickness to be verified based on
liner puncture tests.

6.0 Leach Pad Construction

Leach pad construction involves controlled ore placement by trucks and leaching of successive
lifts to the maximum design height and slope limits. Components of the planned construction are
listed below.

Detailed Design Criteria 4

 Expected Ore Tonnage Startup pad at 50 million dry tons

Total startup and expansion pad at 100 million dry

tons

Ore Production 51,000 ton per day (peak)

Ore Processing Run of Mine

Ore Height 300 ft maximum design height (to be verified based on

ore percolation testing)

Ore Slope Individual ore lifts stacked at natural angle-of-repose

between benches

Target 2H:1V overall slopes with benches with option

for steeper side hill and up hill slopes, as determined
in stability analyses

Closure requirements to consider covering final spent

ore limits with mine overburden or waste rock to
flatten slopes as required by regulations

Ore Setback 6 ft minimum setback from inside edge of perimeter

berm limits

Ore Density 125 pcf bulk density

Ore Moisture Content 2 percent typical as-mined for pond sizing

7 percent drain down for pond sizing

10 percent for makeup water estimates

Leach Pad Phasing Startup lined pad area at about 4,500,000 square ft
based on 300 ft max ore stack height

Ultimate pad expansion lined area at about 9,400,000

square ft

Ore Stack Factor of Safety Static factor of safety = 1.5

Psuedo-static factor of safety = 1.1

Detailed Design Criteria 5

7.0 Solution Application
Solution application involves the uniform application of raffinate solution to the ore stack surface
for controlled infiltration and leaching of the ore. The enriched pregnant leach solution (PLS) is
pumped from the collection ponds to the plant for metal recovery. The planned leach solution
application components are listed below.

Raffinate Irrigation Rate 0.004 gpm/sf by drip emitters

Pregnant (PLS) Flow Rate 2,500 gpm nominal, 3,000 design

Raffinate Circulation Rate 4,000 gpm (TBD)

Drain Down Flow Rate 2,500 gpm in 24 hours with standby emergency
backup pumping system to top surface

Active Leach Surface 1,000,000 sq ft

Leach Cycle 45 days

8.0 Solution Collection Ditch

The solution collection ditch will route the leach pad drain pipe solutions by pipeline to the
pregnant pond with the ditch lined for double containment. The collection ditch will be backfilled
with drain fill for locating application pipelines on the backfill surface as needed. The solution
collection ditch components are listed below.

Ditch Slopes 2.5H:1V

Ditch Bottom Grade 0.5% minimum to pregnant pond

Ditch Liner 60 mil HDPE

Pad Cell Flow Monitoring Flow measurement and sampling as required by

owner

Ditch Liner Anchor Trench 2 ft wide by 2 ft minimum depth trench for liner backfill
anchorage

Ditch Backfill Screened drain fill to cover collection pipe and provide
surface area below ditch freeboard for locating return
application pipeline to ore stack

Ditch Freeboard 1 ft minimum below perimeter access road level for

storm containment

Detailed Design Criteria 6

9.0 Solution Process Ponds
The solution collection ponds will collect and store 100 percent of the operational solutions, as
well as any temporary drain down and design storm flows within the lined leach pad, collection
ditch and process pond areas. The planned solution process ponds include a double lined
Pregnant (PLS) pond and Raffinate pond and a single lined Stormwater pond for any temporary
storm and operational upset events. The solution process pond components are listed below.

Pond Design Depth Target 25 ft maximum including 3 ft freeboard

Pond Bottom Grade Grade to drain to 3 ft deep corner sumps

Berm Crest Width 25 ft minimum for security fencing and access to

pumps

Berm Slopes 2.5H:1V maximum lined interior and 2H:1V maximum

exterior

Soil Liner Fill GCL

Top Geomembrane Liner 80 mil HDPE

Bottom Geomembrane Liner 60 mil LLDPE (Pregnant and Raffinate Ponds only)

Leak Detection System Geonet and geofabric on pond bottom and geofabric
on pond slopes

Leak detection well at 6 inch diameter PVC pipe

between top and bottom liners on pond slope

Pond Liner Anchor Trench 2 ft wide by 2 ft minimum depth trench for liner backfill
anchorage

Pond Sizing PLS process pond to store temporary 24 hr drain

down and 8 hr operational flows + 3 ft freeboard

Storm Event pond to store temporary excess water

balance from storm and process pond upset events
for 72 hrs maximum + 3 ft pond freeboard

Raffinate pond to store 4 hrs of retention time flow + 3

ft freeboard

Emergency 24 hour backup pump system including

power supply for process pond flows and portable gas
operated pump for storm event pond drained back to
PLS pond within 72 hours

Detailed Design Criteria 7

10.0 Fencing
A security fence and posted signs are planned around the leach pad and pond facilities, as
designed by others. The leach pad limits will include a perimeter access road with a 5-foot high
four-strand barbed wire fence. The process ponds will include a 10-foot high chain-link fence with a
security gate for access by authorized personnel.

Detailed Design Criteria 8

 APPENDIX B
CONSTRUCTION QUANTITES
Leaching Facilities Design Augusta Resource Corporation

TABLE B.1 - PHASE 1 HEAP LEACH FACILITIES QUANTITY CALCULATIONS

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY METHOD OF CALCULATION / ASSUMPTION

A. GENERAL LEACH PAD, COLLECTION DITCH AND POND ITEMS

1) Mobilization/Demobilization lump sum 1 See mobilization / demobilization estimate.
2) Foundation Preparation (stripping, grubbing, scarifying, and recompaction) sq ft 4,539,585 ACAD area of 4539585 sq ft
3) Site Grading Cut (original Cell 1 pad and ditch cuts) cu yds 522,046 ACAD LDD quantity with in-place planned grade surfaces relative to existing ground contours.
4) Site Grading Fill (all phase 1 excludes pad berms) cu yds 579,612 ACAD LDD quantity with in-place planned grade surfaces relative to existing ground contours.
5) Perimeter Berms cu yds 29,784 Perimeter 8,741 lf x Area sq ft of berm with Asumed avreage depth of berm of 4' = 92 sq ft =
6) Diversion Ditches cu yds 50,000 Estimated excavation (TBD)
7) Engineering QC/QA month 6.0 1 liner technician + 1 CQA Engineer + lab with QA testing equipment.

B. CELL 1 LEACH PAD AND COLLECTION DITCH (including berms)

1) 6" Select Bedding Fill cu yds 84,070 ACAD area of 4539585 sq ft x .5 ft selected fill / 27 to convert to cu yds
2) Low-Permeability GCL sq ft 4,539,585 ACAD area of 4539585 sq ft
4) 60 mil Textured HDPE Geomembrane Liner sq ft 4,539,585 ACAD area of 4539585 sq ft
5) Drain Cover Fill (3 ft thickness of 3/4" max crushed ore) cu yds 504,400 3 ft thick crushed ore x 4539585 sq ft / 27 to convert to cu yds
9) Anchor Trench (cut and backfill) lr ft 8,285 ACAD perimeter length
10) 4 in. Dia. Corrugated & Perforated P.E. Secondary Drain Pipes lr ft 144,740 ACAD length /18 ft pipe spacing.
11) 8 in. Dia. Corrugated & Perforated P.E. Primary Drain Pipes lr ft 36,390 ACAD length of 35,676 / primary pipe x 102% for pad grade.
12) 18 in. Dia. Corrugated & Perforated N-12 P.E Header Pipe lr ft 7,530 ACAD length along toe of each pad subcell.

C. SOLUTION COLLECTION PONDS

1) Low Permeability GCL sq ft 342,720 Raff (52,500 sq ft x 1.02 for pond grade) + PLS (135,000 sq ft x 1.02 for pond grade) + Storm 1 Pond (148500 sq ft x 1.02 for pond grade)
2) Select Bedding Fill cu yds 6,350 Raff (52,500 sq ft x 1.02 for pond grade) + PLS (135,000 sq ft x 1.02 for pond grade) + Storm 1 Pond (148,500 sq ft x 1.02 for pond grade) x 0.5 ft thickness
3) 1.5 mm (60 mil) Smooth LLDPE Geomembrane Bottom Liner (raff & pls pond) sq ft 191,250 Raff (52,500 sq ft x 1.02 for pond grade) + PLS (135,000 sq ft x 1.02 for pond grade)
4) 2.0 mm (80 mil) Smooth HDPE Geomembrane Top Liner sq ft 342,720 Raff (52,500 sq ft x 1.02 for pond grade) + PLS (135,000 sq ft x 1.02 for pond grade) + Storm 1 Pond (148500 sq ft x 1.02 for pond grade)
5) Geonet between liners (raff & pls pond) sq ft 191,250 Raff (52,500 sq ft x 1.02 for pond grade) + PLS (135,000 sq ft x 1.02 for pond grade)
6) Anchor Trench (cut and backfill) lr ft 4,010 950+1500+1560 perimeter anchor trench for each pond.
7) Raff and PLS Pond Leak Detection Sump, Well and Submersible Pump System each 2 Sump system includes dedicated submersible pump in each well.
8) Pond Sumps (grading and sump pump rub sheet protection) each 3 Rub sheet conveyor belts by owner.
9) Raffinate, PLS and Storm Pond Grading (Fill) cu yds 125,931 ACAD LDD quantity with in-place planned grade surfaces relative to existing ground contours.
10) Raffinate, PLS and Storm Pond Grading (Cut) cu yds 53,237 ACAD LDD quantity with in-place planned grade surfaces relative to existing ground contours.

Tetra Tech June 2007

Leaching Facilities Design Augusta Resource Corporation

TABLE B.2 - PHASE 2 HEAP LEACH FACILITIES QUANTITY CALCULATIONS

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY METHOD OF CALCULATION / ASSUMPTION

A. GENERAL LEACH PAD, COLLECTION DITCH AND POND ITEMS

1) Mobilization/Demobilization lump sum - See mobilization / demobilization estimate.
2) Foundation Preparation (stripping, grubbing, scarifying, and recompaction) sq ft 4,882,560 4,650,055 sq ft x 105% for pad limits on existing topo ground surfaces.
3) Site Grading Cut (original Cell 1 pad and ditch cuts) cu yds 254,958 ACAD LDD quantity with in-place planned grade surfaces relative to existing ground contours.
4) Site Grading Fill (all phase 1 excludes pad berms) cu yds 802,904 ACAD LDD quantity with in-place planned grade surfaces relative to existing ground contours.
5) Perimeter and Interior Berms (excluding backfill for diversion ditches) cu yds 91,249 700 m x 7 sq m (west berm) + (517 m + 463 m) x 18 sq m (interior berms) + 9713 sq m x 3 m (south berm) + 12071sq m x 2 m (east berm) + 4675 sq m x 3.3 m (north
6) Diversion Ditches cu yds - No diversions anticipated for Phase 2
7) Engineering QC/QA month 4.0 1 liner technician + 1 CQA Engineer + lab with QA testing equipment.

B. CELL 1 LEACH PAD AND COLLECTION DITCH (including berms)

1) 6" Select Bedding Fill cu yds 86,115 ACAD area of 4650055 sq ft x .5 ft selected fill / 27 to convert to cu yds
2) Low-Permeability GCL sq ft 4,650,055 ACAD area of 4650055 sq ft
4) 60 mil Textured LLDPE Geomembrane Liner sq ft 4,650,055 ACAD area of 4650055 sq ft
5) Option A - Drain Cover Fill (3 ft thickness of 3/4" max crushed ore) cu yds 516,675 3 ft thick crushed ore x 4650055 sq ft / 27 to convert to cu yds
9) Anchor Trench (cut and backfill) lr ft 9,290 ACAD perimeter length
10) 4 in. Dia. Corrugated & Perforated P.E. Secondary Drain Pipes lr ft 141,620 ACAD length /18 ft pipe spacing.
11) 8 in. Dia. Corrugated & Perforated P.E. Primary Drain Pipes lr ft 37,368 ACAD length of 36,635 / primary pipe x 102% for pad grade.
12) 18 in. Dia. Corrugated & Perforated N-12 P.E Header Pipe lr ft 391 ACAD length along toe of each pad subcell.

C. STORM COLLECTION POND

1) Low Permeability GCL sq ft 196,455 Storm (192,600 sq ft x 1.02 for pond grade)
3) 80 mil Smooth HDPE Geomembrane Top Liner sq ft 196,455 Storm (192,600 sq ft x 1.02 for pond grade)
3) 6" Select Bedding Fill cu yds 3,640 Storm (192,600 sq ft x 1.02 for pond grade) by 0.5 ft thickness
5) Anchor Trench (cut and backfill) cu yds 2,617 Depth 7.5 ft x Width 5.0 ft x Perimeter 1,884 lf / 27 = cu yds
8) Pond Sumps (grading and sump pump rub sheet protection) each 1 Rub sheet conveyor belts by owner.
9) Raffinate, PLS and Storm Pond Grading (Fill) cu yds 96,376 ACAD LDD quantity with in-place planned grade surfaces relative to existing ground contours.
10) Raffinate, PLS and Storm Pond Grading (Cut) cu yds 130,967 ACAD LDD quantity with in-place planned grade surfaces relative to existing ground contours.

Tetra Tech June 2007

 APPENDIX C
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS
 APPENDIX C1
WATER BALANCE AND POND SIZING ANALYSIS
Technical Memorandum

To: File
Cc:
From: Todd Lewis
Project No: 320614
Subject: Water Balance Pond Sizing- Rosemont Leach Facility
Date: 1/26/2007

1.0 Objective

Perform feasibility-level sizing of the various ponds proposed by Augusta Resource (Augusta) for
construction as part of the Rosemont Copper Project heap leach facility, which entails:

• Pregnant Leach Solution (PLS) Pond,

• Raffinate Solution Pond, and
• Storm Water Pond (for runoff from the heap leach pad; Phases 1, 2, and 1+2
separately).

Once the feasibility-level sizing is complete, simulate one year of heap leach operations under
average climate conditions to validate the pond sizing and to estimate the monthly fresh water
make-up requirements of the Rosemont heap leach facility.

2.0 Method

Feasibility-level sizing of ponds involved in a heap leach water cycle follows a four-step process:

1. Create a schematic diagram of the heap leach water cycle focusing on inflows to the
system, outflows from the system, and portions of the system where water storage
exists.
2. Identify the subset of the water cycle on the schematic diagram that must be
computed (using the principle of conservation of mass) in order to determine all
normal inflows to the pond that is being sized.
3. Estimate maximum inflow rates to the pond that is being sized (in an average year)
then compute design volumes by multiplying the aforementioned inflow rates by
prescribed design durations.
4. Assume a base width and then compute the dimensions of the pond by stacking the
design volumes and computing the height associated with each “slice” subject to the
geometric constraints of the pond (side slopes, length to width ratio, etc.)

Tetra Tech
603 Park Point Drive, Suite 250, Golden, CO 80410
Tel 303.217.5700 Fax 303.217.5705 www.tetratech.com
Water balance calculations to validate the pond sizing and estimate the monthly fresh water
make-up requirements of the heap leach water cycle are based on the principle of conservation of
mass, which may be expressed in its most basic form as:

∆S = (ΣI – ΣO) x ∆t

Where:
∆S = Change in system volume,
ΣI = Sum of inflows to system,
ΣO = Sum of outflows from system, and
∆t = Elapsed time.

For storage structures within the Rosemont heap leach water balance model, normal operations
may entail changes in the volume of water stored at the end of a simulated time increment
(months). The estimated pond sizes are validated if their respective capacities are not exceeded
during simulated operations in an average year.

At the system-wide level, the Rosemont heap leach water balance must operate under the criteria
that ∆S = 0. At the Rosemont site, local climatic conditions dictate that additional fresh make-up
water has to be added to the system in given months, i.e. the Rosemont heap leach water
balance cycle is a net evaporative system.

3.0 Assumptions

• Leach ore properties

¾ Leach ore production rate = 38,000 tons per day (tpd),
¾ Leach ore “as-mined” moisture content = 2.0%, and
¾ Leach ore field capacity = 7.0%.
• Raffinate solution application
¾ Raffinate application method = drip emitters,
¾ Raffinate application evaporative loss rate = 3.0% (of the raffinate application rate), and
¾ Target PLS flow rate to PLS Pond = 2,500 gallons per minute (gpm).
• Heap leach pad design
¾ Active leach surface = 1,000,000 square feet (ft2), and
¾ Phase 1 lined area = 4,370,161 ft2,
¾ Phase 2 lined area = 4,511,933 ft2, and
¾ Ultimate lined area = 8,882,094 ft2.
• Pond design
¾ PLS Pond is sized for 8 hours of operational flow plus 24 hours of heap drain-down flow
with an additional 3 feet (ft) of dry freeboard,
¾ PLS drain-down flow rates are assumed equivalent to the estimated PLS Pond
operational flow rates,
¾ Raffinate Solution Pond is sized for 4 hours of operational flow with an additional 3 ft of
dry freeboard,
¾ Storm Water Pond is sized for the 100 year (yr), 24 hour precipitation event, which equals
4.68 inches (in), over the lined heap leach pad area (Phases 1, 2, and 1+2 are done
separately) with an additional 3 ft of dry freeboard,

Water Balance Pond Sizing 2

 ¾ Process pond (PLS and Raffinate) minimum operating depth = 10 ft,
¾ Pond side slopes = 2.5 horizontal to 1 vertical (2.5:1),
¾ Variable pond length to width ratio of between 2.5 long to 1 wide (2.5:1) and 1.5:1, and
¾ Pond shapes are frustums of inverted rectangular pyramids.
• Climate
¾ Pond surface evaporation coefficient = 0.70 (of Pan) as given in Handbook of Applied
Hydrology (Chow, 1964),
¾ Wetted leach surface evaporation coefficient = 0.85 (of Pan) to account for the additional
area exposed on the surface of the heap leach pad, and
¾ Average year precipitation and evaporation values were taken from Santa Rita
Experimental Range, Arizona: Monthly Total Precipitation (inches) (WRCC, 2005) and
Maximum, Normal and Minimum Daily Evaporation and Average Monthly Evaporation
From Open Water Surfaces (ADWR, 2005) as given in Table 1.

4.0 Calculations

A schematic diagram of the Rosemont heap leach balance cycles is shown on Figure 1.

PLS Pond sizing focused on the subset of the Rosemont heap leach water balance cycle
centered on the PLS Pond. As shown in Figure 1, normal inflow rates to the PLS Pond include
the pregnant leach solution flow from the heap leach pad (Ghl) and direct precipitation on the PLS
Pond (Ppp). Details of the PLS Pond sizing are given in Attachment 1, with associated water
balance formulas taken from Figure 1. (Note that since the normal inflow rate (Ghl) is specified,
average precipitation and evaporation data are not required for sizing the PLS Pond.)

Sizing of the Storm Water Pond for Phases 1, 2, and 1+2 was performed using three parameters:
the lined area of the heap leach pad, design storm runoff from the heap leach pad, and direct
precipitation on the Storm Water Pond during the design storm event. Details of the Storm Water
Pond sizing are given in Attachments 2, 3, and 4 for Phases 1, 2, and 1+2, respectively.

Raffinate Solution Pond sizing focused on the subset of the Rosemont heap leach water balance
cycle centered on inflows and outflows from the Raffinate Solution Pond. Referring to Figure 1,
the barren raffinate solution outflow rate to the heap leach pad (Brp) can’t exceed the sum of the
barren raffinate solution inflow rate (Bsx), direct precipitation on the Raffinate Solution Pond (Prp),
and the fresh water make-up rate (Ffs). Accordingly, the normal inflow rate to the heap leach pad
was taken as Brp. Details of the Raffinate Solution Pond sizing are given in Attachment 5, with
associated water balance formulas taken from Figure 1. (Note that for this calculation, the
greatest required solution application rate is in the month of June at 3,073 gpm in order to sustain
the target 2,500 gpm PLS flow rate.)

One year of Rosemont heap leach water cycle operations was simulated under average
precipitation conditions using a water balance model based on the schematic and water balance
equations shown on Figure 1. This model, detailed in Attachment 6, was used to verify pond
sizing and to determine monthly fresh water make-up required at the site.

5.0 Conclusions/Results

Water Balance Pond Sizing 3

For the sizing of each pond, various alternative configurations were computed in order to provide
a range of possible dimensions. These results are detailed in Table 2 and are summarized below:

• PLS Pond – depending on the selected geometric configuration (in Table 2), the PLS Pond
should have an ultimate capacity between 44 and 60 acre-feet.
• Phase 1 Storm Water Pond – depending on the selected geometric configuration, the Phase
1 Storm Water Pond should have an ultimate capacity of about 50 acre-feet.
• Phase 2 Storm Water Pond – depending on the selected geometric configuration, the Phase
2 Storm Water Pond should have an ultimate capacity between 54 and 55 acre-feet.
• Phase 1+2 Storm Water Pond (if one combined pond is built) – depending on the selected
geometric configuration, the Phase 1+2 Storm Water Pond should have an ultimate capacity
between 110 and 116 acre-feet.
• Raffinate Solution Pond – depending on the selected geometric configuration, the Raffinate
Solution Pond should have an ultimate capacity between 5 and 11 acre-feet.

The Rosemont heap leach water balance cycle was simulated with average year climate values
and pond configurations as indicated in Table 2 to validate the pond sizing and determine the
fresh water make-up requirements at the site. The heap leach water balance results are detailed
in Table 3. Key results are summarized below:

• As was mentioned in the Method Section, the Rosemont heap leach water balance cycle is a
net evaporative system. The water balance results agree with this assertion as fresh water
make-up is predicted year-round for all scenarios investigated.
• The results show that the consumptive maximum fresh water requirements for the Rosemont
Copper Project are 600 gpm.

6.0 References

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (2005). Arizona Mining BADCT Guidance Manual,
Aquifer Protection Program. Publication TB-04-01. Phoenix, AZ: ADEQ.

Arizona Department of Water Resources (2005). Maximum, Normal and Minimum Daily
Evaporation and Average Monthly Evaporation From Open Water Surfaces. File name
“EvaporationRates.tif” provided by Augusta Resource Corp. Phoenix, AZ: ADWR.

Chow, V.T. (1964). Handbook of Applied Hydrology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Western Regional Climate Center. (2005). Santa Rita Experimental Range, Arizona: Monthly
Total Precipitation (inches). File name “SantaRitaPrecip.tif” retrieved on October 4, 2005 by
Augusta Resource Corp. from URL: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMONtpre.pl?azsant. Reno,
NV: WRCC.

Water Balance Pond Sizing 4

 APPENDIX C2
STABILITY ANALYSIS
Technical Memorandum

To: Alyssa Kohlman

Cc:
From: Ana Mohseni
Project No: 310306
Subject: Stability Analyses- Rosemont Leach Facility
Date: April 12, 2007

1.0 Introduction

This memo presents the results of slope stability analyses of the proposed heap leach facility at
the Rosemont Mine in Arizona. The heap leach facility will be constructed on natural ground with
a grade ranging from 3% to 7%. Structural fill composed of ROM ore will be used to flatten the
natural grade near the toe of the heap to 3% to 4%, as shown in the attached sections. The most
critical (steepest natural grade and pad grade) maximum section of the Stage 1 heap leach
facility was analyzed.

2.0 Design Criteria

Design of the heap leach facility is governed by the requirements of the Arizona Mining Guidance
Manual BADCT. Based on these requirements, the minimum stability criteria adopted for the
heap leach facility are presented in Table 1.0.

Table 1.0 Minimum Stability Requirements

Required Minimum
Analysis Condition
Factor of Safety
Static 1.30
Pseudostatic 1.10

The site seismicity was analyzed for two levels of ground motion: the maximum probable
earthquake (MPE) and the maximum credible earthquake (MCE). These values are 0.045g for
the MPE and 0.200g for the MCE. Since the facility life is relatively short and no threat to human
life is anticipated, the MPE ground motion was utilized for pseudostatic analyses of the heap
leach facility.

Tetra Tech
603 Park Point Drive, Suite 250, Golden, CO 80410
Tel 303.217.5700 Fax 303.217.5705 www.tetratech.com
3.0 Methods

The stability analyses were performed using the Slope/W component of GeoStudio 2004 (Version
6.20) by Geo-Slope International, Ltd. Slope/W was used to conduct limiting equilibrium analyses
using the general limit equilibrium (GLE) method, which satisfies both force and moment
equilibrium. This program incorporates search routines to determine the critical, lowest factor-of-
safety failure surface.

Slope/W was used to conduct analyses of slope stability considering block sliding on the liner
interface and global (rotational) stability of the ore and the foundation materials. Full height failure
surfaces, intersecting the crest of the ore, were considered for all analyses. The heap was
modeled with one foot of head on the liner.

To evaluate the performance of the heap under seismic loading a pseudo-static analysis was
performed. The pseudo-static analyses subject the two-dimensional sliding mass to a horizontal
acceleration equal to an earthquake coefficient multiplied by the acceleration of gravity. To allow
for damping and attenuation of the bedrock acceleration within a slope or embankment, and to
account for the rigid body pseudo-static model, the pseudo-static coefficient used in the model
was a conservative estimate of horizontal ground motion of 2/3 of the peak ground acceleration of
the design earthquake (the MPE in this case), or 0.030g.

A yield acceleration analysis was also performed, to determine the critical level of horizontal
ground motion for the heap leach facility. The yield acceleration is the horizontal ground
acceleration that results in a factor of safety equal to unity using limit equilibrium methods of
stability analysis. This yield acceleration was compared to the design ground acceleration to
determine a factor of safety against pseudostatic failure of the heap leach.

Material properties for the heap materials were determined from field and laboratory testing,
experience with similar materials, published literature, and professional judgment. The bilinear
strength model used for the ROM Arkose Ore is a conservative adaptation of the industry
standard Leps (1970) rock strength model. Leps’ strength model of the weakest type of rock fill
was adapted for these analyses. The Leps strength of the ore is conservative when compared
with laboratory testing of the Arkose material at the site. The material properties for the alluvium,
structural fill, and liner interface were based on site-specific laboratory testing. The material
properties for the weathered bedrock were based on field and laboratory testing and subsequent
analysis. The material properties used in the analyses are presented in Table 2.0.

Stability Analyses 2
 Table 2.0 Material Properties
Unit
Phi Cohesion
Material # Description Strength Model Weight
degrees psf pcf
0-60': 38
degrees
1 ROM Arkose Ore Bilinear 0 140
60'+: 34
degrees
2 Structural Fill Mohr-Coulomb 39 2000 140
LL/GCL Liner Interface
3 Mohr-Coulomb 19 0 95
(Textured)
4 Alluvium Mohr-Coulomb 39 2000 127
5 Weathered Bedrock Mohr-Coulomb 40 3500 160

4.0 Results

Both the static and pseudostatic factors of safety against a full-height failure of the heap leach
were found to be adequate for a block failure sliding on the liner interface and for global stability.
Failure through the foundation materials does not represent a critical failure mode for the heap
leach with the material properties used in the analysis. Table 3.0 shows the results of the
analyses.

The yield acceleration for the heap leach for sliding on the liner was found to be 0.14g. This gives
a factor of safety against pseudostatic failure, when presented as the ratio of the yield
acceleration to the design acceleration (2/3 of the MPE for pseudostatic analyses), of 4.67. Since
sliding on the liner is the more critical failure mode (versus global failure of the ore), applying the
yield acceleration to a global failure scenario results in a safety factor greater than unity. The
analyses discussed in this memorandum are attached.

Table 3.0 Results of Slope Stability Analyses

Safety Factor
Yield/Design
Ore Slope Scenario Static Pseudostatic Acceleration
2H:1V Block sliding on liner 1.41 1.30 4.67
2H:1V Global Failure of Ore 1.70 1.58 N/A

Stability Analyses 3
ATTACHMENT A
ROSEMONT FEASIBILITY STUDY
HEAP LEACH FACILITY Material #: 4
Material #: 1 Description: Alluvium
Description: ROM Arkose Ore Wt: 127
Wt: 125 Cohesion: 2000
Horz Seismic Load: 0 Cohesion: 0 Phi: 39
(Static) Phi 1: 38
Phi 2: 34 Material #: 5
Bilinear Normal: 7200 Description: Weathered Bedrock
(Normal load equivalent to approx. 60 feet of ore) Wt: 160
Method: GLE Cohesion: 3500
Slip Surface Option: Block Material #: 2 Phi: 40
Description: Structural Fill
Wt: 140
Cohesion: 2000
Phi: 39
700
Material #: 3
Description: LLDPE/GCL Liner Interface (textured)
Wt: 95
600 1.41 Cohesion: 0
Phi: 19

500
Height (ft)

400

2H:1V
300
#3
3%
#1
450' @ 4% #2
200
#4

#5
100

250' @ 7% 3%

0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

Distance (ft) (x 1000)

ROSEMONT FEASIBILITY STUDY
HEAP LEACH FACILITY Material #: 4
Material #: 1 Description: Alluvium
Description: ROM Arkose Ore Wt: 127
Wt: 125 Cohesion: 2000
Horz Seismic Load: 3.e-002 Cohesion: 0 Phi: 39
(Horizontal Component of the MPE) Phi 1: 38
Phi 2: 34 Material #: 5
Bilinear Normal: 7200 Description: Weathered Bedrock
(Normal load equivalent to approx. 60 feet of ore) Wt: 160
Method: GLE Cohesion: 3500
Slip Surface Option: Block Material #: 2 Phi: 40
Description: Structural Fill
Wt: 140
Cohesion: 2000
Phi: 39
700
Material #: 3
Description: LLDPE/GCL Liner Interface (textured)
Wt: 95
600 1.30 Cohesion: 0
Phi: 19

500
Height (ft)

400

2H:1V
300
#3
3%
#1
450' @ 4% #2
200
#4

#5
100

250' @ 7% 3%

0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

Distance (ft) (x 1000)

ROSEMONT FEASIBILITY STUDY
HEAP LEACH FACILITY Material #: 4
Material #: 1 Description: Alluvium
Description: ROM Arkose Ore Wt: 127
Wt: 125 Cohesion: 2000
Horz Seismic Load: 0 Cohesion: 0 Phi: 39
(Static) Phi 1: 38
Phi 2: 34 Material #: 5
Bilinear Normal: 7200 Description: Weathered Bedrock
(Normal load equivalent to approx. 60 feet of ore) Wt: 160
Method: GLE Cohesion: 3500
Slip Surface Option: EntryAndExit Material #: 2 Phi: 40
Description: Structural Fill
Wt: 140
Cohesion: 2000
Phi: 39
700
Material #: 3
Description: LLDPE/GCL Liner Interface (textured)
Wt: 95
600 1.70 Cohesion: 0
Phi: 19

500
Height (ft)

400

2H:1V
300
#3
3%
#1
450' @ 4% #2
200
#4

#5
100

250' @ 7% 3%

0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

Distance (ft) (x 1000)

ROSEMONT FEASIBILITY STUDY
HEAP LEACH FACILITY Material #: 4
Material #: 1 Description: Alluvium
Description: ROM Arkose Ore Wt: 127
Wt: 125 Cohesion: 2000
Horz Seismic Load: 3.e-002 Cohesion: 0 Phi: 39
(Horzintal Component of the MPE) Phi 1: 38
Phi 2: 34 Material #: 5
Bilinear Normal: 7200 Description: Weathered Bedrock
(Normal load equivalent to approx. 60 feet of ore) Wt: 160
Method: GLE Cohesion: 3500
Slip Surface Option: EntryAndExit Material #: 2 Phi: 40
Description: Structural Fill
Wt: 140
Cohesion: 2000
Phi: 39
700
Material #: 3
Description: LLDPE/GCL Liner Interface (textured)
Wt: 95
600 1.58 Cohesion: 0
Phi: 19

500
Height (ft)

400

2H:1V
300
#3
3%
#1
450' @ 4% #2
200
#4

#5
100

250' @ 7% 3%

0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

Distance (ft) (x 1000)

ROSEMONT FEASIBILITY STUDY
HEAP LEACH FACILITY Material #: 4
Material #: 1 Description: Alluvium
Description: ROM Arkose Ore Wt: 127
Wt: 125 Cohesion: 2000
Horz Seismic Load: 0.14 Cohesion: 0 Phi: 39
(Yield Acceleration) Phi 1: 38
Phi 2: 34 Material #: 5
Bilinear Normal: 7200 Description: Weathered Bedrock
(Normal load equivalent to approx. 60 feet of ore) Wt: 160
Method: GLE Cohesion: 3500
Slip Surface Option: Block Material #: 2 Phi: 40
Description: Structural Fill
Wt: 140
Cohesion: 2000
Phi: 39
700
Material #: 3
Description: LLDPE/GCL Liner Interface (textured)
Wt: 95
600 1.01 Cohesion: 0
Phi: 19

500
Height (ft)

400

2H:1V
300
#3
3%
#1
450' @ 4% #2
200
#4

#5
100

250' @ 7% 3%

0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

Distance (ft) (x 1000)

 APPENDIX C3
PAD DRAIN SYSTEM ANALYSIS
 Client: Augusta Resource Corp. Job No.: 320614
Subject: Rosemont Project By: JAC
Details: Heap Leach Pipe Sizing Date: May 10, 2007

Slotted ADS Pipe

Mannings n: 0.015
Pipe Slope (m/m): 0.050
Pipe Inside Diameter Flow Flow Depth Flow Velocity
(mm) (m3/s) (mm) (m/s)
75 0.005 65 1.19
100 0.010 85 1.45

Slotted ADS Pipe

Mannings n: 0.015
Pipe Slope (m/m): 0.100
Pipe Diameter Flow Flow Depth Flow Velocity
(mm) (m3/s) (mm) (m/s)
75 0.007 65 1.69
100 0.015 85 2.05

Slotted ADS N12 Pipe

Mannings n: 0.012
Pipe Slope (m/m): 0.080
Pipe Diameter Flow Flow Depth Flow Velocity
(mm) (m3/s) (mm) (m/s)
100 0.016 85 2.29
150 0.048 128 3.00
200 0.104 170 3.64
250 0.188 213 4.22
300 0.305 255 4.77
375 0.554 319 5.53
450 0.901 383 6.25
600 1.939 510 7.57
760 3.641 646 8.86

Mannings n: 0.012
Pipe Slope (m/m): 0.030
Pipe Diameter Flow Flow Depth Flow Velocity
(mm) (m3/s) (mm) (m/s)
100 0.010 85 1.40
150 0.029 128 1.84
200 0.063 170 2.23
250 0.115 213 2.59
300 0.187 255 2.92
375 0.339 319 3.39
450 0.552 383 3.83
600 1.187 510 4.64
760 2.230 646 5.43

HeapPipeSizingCalcs_rev4.xls
 Client: Augusta Resource Corp. Job No.: 320614
Subject: Rosemont Project By: JAC
Details: Heap Leach Pipe Sizing Date: May 10, 2007

Avg. Solution Outflow Rate (m3/hr): 681.4 3,000 gpm (From Water Balance)
100-Year 24-Hour Precipitation (m): 0.119 4.68 inches (From NOAA Atlas 14)

Primary Pipe Header Pipe

Total Area Total Area Design Slope Design Slope
2
(m ) (ft2) (m/m) (m/m)
Phase 1 - North: 181,685 1,955,644 0.030 0.030
Phase 1 - South: 224,316 2,414,516
Total Phase 1: 406,001 4,370,160

Phase 2 - West: 272,301 2,931,021 0.030 0.030

Phase 2 - East: 147,009 1,582,396
Total Phase 2: 419,310 4,513,417

Total Pad Area: 825,311 8,883,577

Header Pipes

PLS Solution + 100-Year Storm Flow

Pipe
PLS Flow Storm Flow Total Flow Total Flow Diameter
3
Area (m /hr) (m3/hr) (m3/hr) (gpm) No. Pipes (mm)
Phase 1 681 2011 2692 11854 2.0 450
Phase 2 681 2077 2758 12144 2.0 450

Primary Pipes

PLS Solution + 100-Year Storm Flow

Pipe
PLS Flow Storm Flow Total Flow Total Flow Diameter
3
Area (m /hr) (m3/hr) (m3/hr) (gpm) No. Pipes (mm)
Phase 1 - North 681 900 1581 6962 7 200
Phase 1 - South 681 1111 1792 7892 8 200

Phase 2 - West 681 1349 2030 8938 9 200

Phase 2 - East 681 728 1410 6206 7 200

Check Secondary Pipe Capacity

Calculated Pipe Spacing = 10 m (based on McWhorter equation)

Controlling Design Pipe Slope = 0.05 m/m

PLS Solution + 100-Year Storm Flow

Pipe
PLS Flow Storm Flow Total Flow Total Flow Diameter
Phase (m3/hr) (m3/hr) (m3/hr) (gpm) No. Pipes (mm)
Phase 1 - North 681 900 1581.26 6962 92 75

12m spacing ok for capacity

HeapPipeSizingCalcs_rev4.xls
 CLIENT: Augusta Resources Corp.
PROJECT: Rosemont Project JOB NO: 320614
SUBJECT: Heap Leach Pad Pipe Sizing BY: JAC
DETAILS Pipe Spacing - McWhorter & Sunada, 1977 Date: May 10, 2007

Pipe Spacing Application Rate Converter

Units: Metric Application Rate: 0.0050 gpm/ft 2
Application Rate: 0.29 m^3/day/m^2 12.2242 l/hr/m2
Maximum Desired Head on the Liner: 1.0 m 0.0122 m3/hr/m2
Hydraulic Conductivity: 8.64 m/day 0.29 m3/day/m2
10.36 ft3/day/ft2
Pipe Spacing: 10.9 m
Average Hydraulic Head on Liner: 0.5 m Hydraulic Conductivity Converter
Hydraulic Conductivity 0.0100 cm/s
28.35 ft/day
8.64 m/day
0 .5
L ⎛ W ⎞
H = * ⎜ ⎟
2 ⎝ K ⎠
Where:
H = Maximum Hydraulic Head on Liner at Midpoint between Pipes
L = Drain Pipe Spacing
W = Application Rate
K = Hydraulic Conductivity

1) Assumes permeability in drain layer of 1 x 10 -2 for a fully loaded scenario with lift height at 60 meters

HeapPipeSizingCalcs_rev4.xls
 APPENDIX C4
LINER SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
Technical Memorandum

To: Troy Meyer

Cc:
From: Alyssa Kohlman
Project No: 320614-200-30
Subject: BADCT Equivalence- Rosemont Heap Leach Liner
Date: April 17, 2007

1.0 Introduction

This memorandum has been prepared in order to demonstrate the equivalence of the proposed
heap leach liner system at the Rosemont mine in Pima County, Arizona to the BADCT
Prescriptive requirements set forth in the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality’s “Arizona
Mining Guidance Manual BADCT” (ADEQ Publication Number TB-04-01).

Under the BADCT Prescriptive criteria, engineering equivalents to specific elements are deemed
acceptable as long as supporting evidence is provided to ADEQ. The following sections provide a
summary of the proposed design of the heap leach liner system and discussions of engineering
analyses demonstrating the equivalence of the certain aspects of the proposed design to
acceptable BADCT standards.

2.0 Background

Rosemont is a proposed copper-molybdenum mining project (Project) in Arizona. The project site
is located approximately 35 miles southeast of Tucson, Arizona on the east slope of the Santa
Rita Mountains. The Project will be developed as an open pit mine with a milling and processing
plant for sulfide ores and a leaching facility for oxide ores. The leach pad and associated ponds
are proposed to be located just east of the open pit.

3.0 Proposed Design

Some of the more important technical aspects in liner selection for this project site include
geomembrane liner resistance to rock puncture, adequate liner friction strengths for slope
stability, elongation capacity to withstand rock fill foundation settlements under high heap loads,
and long-term exposure to climatic conditions (temperature expansion and contraction, wind
forces and UV sunlight exposure in the collection ditch and pond areas).

Settlement under the pad liner will be minimal with medium dense to dense overburden soils, and
the site grading fill will consist of fairly competent rocky materials placed in controlled lifts,
moisture conditioned, and compacted by heavy vibratory rollers. The compacted soil and rock fill

Tetra Tech
603 Park Point Drive, Suite 250, Golden, CO 80410
Tel 303.217.5700 Fax 303.217.5705 www.tetratech.com
should settle at approximately one percent or less, based on past settlement experience on rock
fill dams under similar planned placement and fill load conditions.

The basic design of the Rosemont heap leach liner system consists of prepared subgrade,
overlain by a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL), overlain by 60-mil double-textured LLDPE. Three feet
of overliner drain fill and an internal drainage pipe network will be placed over the 60 mil liner.
Each of the liner components is intended to maintain the constructability and performance of the
liner system to protect the environment and limit undesired seepage of process fluids. The
following sections contain details on each of the liner components. A schematic showing the
leach pad liner section is presented in Figure 1.0.

Figure 1.0 Schematic of Proposed Leach Pad Liner Section

3.1 Overliner Drain

The heap leach overliner drain rock is proposed to consist of a three-foot thickness of processed
drainage material (clean crushed rock), with 100% passing a 1.5” screen. The function of this
layer is to protect the geomembrane from damage that might occur from construction or
operations activities, and to collect leachate drainage from the overlying heap, thus limiting
hydraulic head on the geomembrane liner.

The use of minus 1.5-inch material for the drainage layer rather than the BADCT specified minus
¾-inch material is based upon a site specific approach for Rosemont, rather than the prescriptive
standards in BADCT. This use of material is supported by laboratory testing, as described below.

The pipe network in the overdrain material consists of four-inch diameter corrugated perforated
PE N-12 drain pipe at typical 30 foot herringbone spacing. These pipes feed to a series of larger
diameter collector pipes. The system has been designed to minimize head on the liner. Average
head on the liner is expected to be approximately one foot.

3.2 LLDPE Geomembrane

A 60 mil (1.5 mm) Linear Low Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) geomembrane liner has been
selected for the leach pad, based on engineering performance requirements, and past design and

BADCT Equivalence 2
construction experience. The pad liner will have double textured surfaces in order to enhance the
heap leach stability and the safety of construction workers working on the liner in irregular terrain.
LLDPE provides superior puncture resistance compared to HDPE. A 60-mil liner was deemed
adequate based on site-specific liner puncture testing for the project.

The collection ditch, pond spillway, and pregnant and storm pond top liners will include 80 mil (2.0
mm) single textured sheet HDPE geomembrane liners (textured side facing up for traction) with
the secondary PLS and Raffinate pond liner to include a composite 60 mil LLDPE smooth sheet
geomembrane liner in contact with the underlying GCL liner. Schematics of the single- and
double-lined ponds are shown in Figures 2.0 and 3.0. Conveyor rub sheets will be provided by
the owner over the top pond liners in the sump corners and anchored at the pond crest as
needed for any foot traffic or pump related operations. A leak detection geonet, sump and well
pipe will be included between the pregnant pond top and bottom liner system with a submersible
pump installed within the leak detection well pipes in each pond sump corner. The ponds will be
leak tested before operation using a standard procedure of filling the ponds with fresh water and
monitoring the leak detection sump. Any significant leaks that would transfer hydraulic head to
the primary liner will be repaired prior to operation of the pond. During operations, the pond will
be monitored and repaired if leakage rates greater than the threshold level established by the
Engineer are exceeded.

Figure 2.0 Schematic of Single-Lined Pond Liner Section

BADCT Equivalence 3
 Figure 3.0 Schematic of Double-Lined Pond Liner Section

3.3 Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL)

A sodium bentonite geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) was selected for the low-permeability layer in
the liner system due to the absence of available onsite clay borrow materials for the leach pad
and pond liner system. The GCL liner provides the equivalent of a one-foot minimum thickness of
1 x 10-6 cm/sec or lower permeability soil layer.

The higher cost for GCL can be offset by cost savings in construction time due to the relatively
rapid deployment of the GCL rolls during geomembrane liner installation with no moisture
conditioning or compaction required. The GCL surface provides rock puncture protection to the
overlying geomembrane liner, and only requires a smoothed and compacted subgrade surface
graded to drain and support the composite pad liner system.

The direct contact between the geomembrane liner and low permeability subliner GCL reduces
the seepage through the liner system, and is the state-of-practice liner system for copper heap
leach pads. As discussed above, the leach pad liner includes an overliner gravity drain fill and
pipe system to minimize hydraulic heads on the pad liner and limit leakage.

4.0 Engineering Analyses

4.1 Geochemical Compatibility

Geochemical compatibility with leachate was addressed for both the LLDPE and for the bentonite
GCL product. Technical literature indicates that sulfuric acid in the concentrations that will be
present in the heap (approximately 0.5% concentration) will have little or no effect on the LLDPE.
While low pH and high ionic strength solutions can be detrimental to the performance of sodium
bentonite, these detrimental effects are minimal under high confining pressures and low acid
levels at Rosemont. In addition, the expected confining pressures at Rosemont are well above

BADCT Equivalence 4
 those shown to minimize the detrimental effects of acidic and high ionic strength solutions on
bentonite (Thiel and Criley, 2005).
A chemical resistance summary chart provided by Sierra Geosynthetics and Agru technical
literature regarding LLDPE chemical resistance are provided in Attachment A.

4.1.1 Puncture Resistance

LLDPE was selected for the geomembrane material in the liner system because of its superior
puncture resistance in comparison to other available geomembrane types. It should be noted that
placement of the GCL layer under the geomembrane liner generally increases the puncture
resistance of the LLDPE to the underlying material (prepared subgrade). GCL also has the added
benefit of sealing off punctures that occur in overlying geomembranes (Narejo et. al., 2002).

Laboratory testing on site-specific material was conducted to ensure that components of the liner
system will have adequate puncture resistance under the project loads. The testing was
conducted on 60-mil smooth LLDPE. The overdrain layer consisted of a composite of
representative on-site materials screened through a 1.5-inch sieve. The bedding layer consisted
of on-site arkose rock screened over a 1.5-inch sieve. A layer of CETCO GCL was placed
between the geomembrane and bedding layer (woven side of GCL facing the LLDPE). The test
load used was 390 psi, which corresponds to an ore heap height of 450 feet, which is higher than
anticipated ore heights in order to incorporate a factor of safety against puncture.

Although two “major” indentations were observed in the geomembrane, no holes were observed
by visual inspection or with a vacuum box. Full puncture test results are included in the heap
leach report for this project.

4.1.2 Leakage

Vector calculated the expected hydraulic performance of two leach pad liner options:

• BADCT prescriptive geomembrane/clay system and

• site-specific geomembrane/GCL system proposed for Rosemont.

Theoretical leakage calculations were performed using the Giroud (1997) equations. Giroud and
Bonaparte (1989) indicate that the 1 cm2 (“large”) hole is appropriate to size components of the
liner system, such as LCRS systems in double-lined impoundments. This is conservative
compared to the smaller hole recommended for evaluating the performance of the liner system.
One (1) 1 cm2 circular puncture per acre of liner is an appropriate estimate of the number of
defects for liners placed using very good installation practices and QA/QC. More information on
this subject can be found in Giroud and Bonaparte (1989).

Using the Giroud (1997) equation and an average of one foot of hydraulic head on the liner, the
calculations resulted in an estimated liner leakage as follows for the evaluated options:

• 4.6 gal/acre/day for the BADCT prescriptive geomembrane/compacted clay system and

BADCT Equivalence 5
 • 0.70 gal/acre/day for a geomembrane/GCL composite liner system proposed for
Rosemont.

Since the lined area for Phase 1 is approximately 104 acres, this results in a flow of
approximately 73 to 479 gallons per day, using a GCL or clay system, respectively. Leakage
calculations are presented in Attachment B.

4.1.3 Slope Stability

Potential slip planes internal to the ore, through the foundation materials, and along the planes
created by the liner system were considered. Laboratory testing on the site-specific materials
including the liner system components was conducted under loads of 25, 50, and 100 psi. The
weakest interface is expected to be between the GCL and the geomembrane. Large-scale direct
shear testing of this interface indicated a friction angle of 11 degrees.

Slope stability analyses indicate that the current design of the facility has adequate factors of
safety against global, full-height failure and against block sliding on the liner interface for both the
static and pseudostatic conditions. Material properties used and details of the heap leach stability
testing are included in a separate memorandum.

5.0 References

Agru America, undated, Chemical Resistance Information for HDPE and Polypropylene,
qualitative information brochure.

Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP / Marlex Polythylene Premium Extrusion and Rigid
Packaging Resins, 2005, PE TIB-2 Packaging Properties, product technical data.

Giroud, J.P. and R. Bonaparte, 1989, Leakage through Liners Constructed with Geomembranes -
Part I. Geomembrane Liners and – Part 2. Composite Liners, Geotextile and Geomembranes 8.

Giroud, J.P., 1997, Equations for Calculating the Rate of Liquid Migration Through Geocomposite
Liners Due to Geomembrane Defects, Geosynthetics International, Vol. 4, Nos. 3 – 4, pp. 335 –
348.

Narejo et. Al., 2002, An evaluation of geosynthetic clay liners to minimize geomembrane leakage
caused by protrusions in subgrades and compacted clay liners, in Clay Geosynthetic Barriers,
Zanzinger, Koerner & Gartung (eds.), (c) 2002 Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse

Thiel, R. and Criley, K., 2005, Hydraulic Conductivity of a GCL Under Various High Effective
Confining Stresses for Three Different Leachates, Presented at Geofrontiers 2005, Waste
Containment and Remediation

BADCT Equivalence 6
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
LEAKAGE RATE CALCULATIONS THROUGH CIRCULAR DEFECTS IN A GEOMEMBRANE/GCL COMPOSITE
LINER
Giroud's Equation (1997)

Cqo= 0.21contact quality factor (dimensionless, 0.21 for good contact, 1.15 for poor contact)
h= 0.3049 height of liquid on top of geomembrane (m, must be less than or equal to 3 m)
d= 1.00E-02 diameter of circular defect (m, must be between 0.0005 and 0.025 m)
ts= 0.0060 thickness of low-permeability soil component (m)
ks = 1.00E-09 hydraulic conductivity of low-permeability soil component (m/sec)

Q= 3.17E-08 Rate of liquid migration (m3/sec)

Q= 0.72 Rate of liquid migration (gal/defect/day)
1 Number of installation defects per acre
Q= 0.7 Rate of liquid migration (gal/acre/day)
LEAKAGE RATE CALCULATIONS THROUGH CIRCULAR DEFECTS IN A GEOMEMBRANE/COMPACTED CLAY
COMPOSITE LINER
Giroud's Equation (1997)

Cqo= 1.15 contact quality factor (dimensionless, 0.21 for good contact, 1.15 for poor contact)
h= 0.3048 height of liquid on top of geomembrane (m, must be less than or equal to 3 m)
d= 1.00E-02 diameter of circular defect (m, must be between 0.0005 and 0.025 m)
ts = 0.3049 thickness of low-permeability soil component (m)
ks= 1.00E-08 hydraulic conductivity of low-permeability soil component (m/sec)

Q= 2.03E-07 Rate of liquid migration (m3/sec)

Q= 4.63 Rate of liquid migration (gal/defect/day)
1 Number of installation defects per acre
Q= 4.6 Rate of liquid migration (gal/acre/day)
 APPENDIX C5
GEOTECHNICAL DATA
 Points
Sample Density/MC Direct Shear: A B C
Normal (psf) 2880 5760 11520
Shear (psf) 3375 4815 9974
Arkose 02 98.5 pcf, air-dried Displacement 1.1 1.1 1.1

phi calculated by point -1.1" displ.

49.5 39.9 40.9

Direct Shear trendline: phi (degrees) c (psf) R2

Arkose02 y= 0.7826 + 795.5x 38.0 795.5 0.9846
Arkose02 y= 0.8747 x 41.2 0 0.9671

Direct Shear Test

1.1" Displacement (3 Points)

12000
Linear Trendline:
y = 0.7826x + 795.5
R2 = 0.9846
10000
Linear Trendline (c=0):
y = 0.8747x
R2 = 0.9671
8000
Shear Stress (psf)

6000

4000
Arkose02

2000 Linear (Arkose02): cohesion = 0

Linear (Arkose02)

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Normal Stress (psf)
 Points
Sample Density/MC Direct Shear: A B C
Normal (psf) 2880 5760 11520
PEAK Shear (psf) 2410 5492
Arkose 02 98.5 pcf, air-dried Displacement 1.216 1.625 N/A

phi calculated by point -1.1" displ.

39.9 43.6 0.0

Direct Shear trendline: phi (degrees) c (psf) R2

Arkose02 y= 1.0701 x - 672 46.9 -672 1 NOT VALID
Arkose02 y= 0.9301 x 42.9 0 0.981

Direct Shear Test

Peak Strength (2 Points)

6000
Linear Trendline:
y = 1.0701x - 672
R2 = 1
5000
Linear Trendline (c=0)
y = 0.9301x
4000 R2 = 0.981
Shear Stress (psf)

3000

2000
Arkose02

1000 Linear (Arkose02)

Linear (Arkose02)

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Normal Stress (psf)