[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 473, H.R. 869, H.R. 1258,
H.R. 1545, H.R. 1740 & H.R. 1904
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS
AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-40
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
66-953 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Mike Coffman, CO Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Dan Boren, OK
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Jeff Denham, CA CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Martin Heinrich, NM
David Rivera, FL Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Jeff Duncan, SC John P. Sarbanes, MD
Scott R. Tipton, CO Betty Sutton, OH
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Niki Tsongas, MA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Kristi L. Noem, SD John Garamendi, CA
Steve Southerland II, FL Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Bill Flores, TX Vacancy
Andy Harris, MD
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
Charles J. ``Chuck'' Fleischmann,
TN
Jon Runyan, NJ
Bill Johnson, OH
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director
David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Doug Lamborn, CO Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Martin Heinrich, NM
Mike Coffman, CO John P. Sarbanes, MD
Tom McClintock, CA Betty Sutton, OH
David Rivera, FL Niki Tsongas, MA
Scott R. Tipton, CO John Garamendi, CA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
Kristi L. Noem, SD
Bill Johnson, OH
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, June 14, 2011........................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Boren, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Oklahoma................................................ 5
Denham, Hon. Jeff, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 88
Prepared statement on H.R. 869........................... 107
Flores, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas............................................. 15
Prepared statement on H.R. 1545.......................... 17
Gosar, Hon. Paul A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 27
Prepared statement on H.R. 1904.......................... 29
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Markey, Hon. Edward J., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Massachusetts..................................... 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Statement of Witnesses:
Bellefond, Lisa, Director, Federal Government Relations, The
Nature Conservancy, Washington State Program............... 12
Prepared statement on H.R. 1740.......................... 13
Burke, Marcilynn, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Oral statement on H.R.
1545....................................................... 18
Prepared statement on H.R. 1545.......................... 19
Oral statement on H.R. 869............................... 89
Prepared statement on H.R. 869........................... 90
Oral statement on H.R. 1904.............................. 34
Prepared statement on H.R. 1904.......................... 35
Cherry, Jon, Vice President, Resolution Copper Company....... 43
Prepared statement on H.R. 1904.......................... 45
Featherstone, Roger, Director, Arizona Mining Reform
Coalition.................................................. 57
Prepared statement on H.R. 1904.......................... 58
Groth, Larry D., City Manager, City of Waco, Texas........... 20
Prepared statement on H.R. 1545.......................... 21
Haines, Bill, Scout Executive/Chief Operating Officer, Indian
Nations Council, Boy Scouts of America..................... 7
Prepared statement on H.R. 473........................... 8
Hing, Hon. Michael O., Mayor, Town of Superior, Arizona...... 36
Prepared statement on H.R. 1904.......................... 38
Kelly, Bryan, Director of Regulatory Compliance and
Government Affairs--Water, Merced Irrigation District...... 91
Prepared statement on H.R. 869........................... 93
Lewis, Shan, President, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, and
Vice Chairman, Fort Mojave Indian Tribe.................... 48
Prepared statement on H.R. 1904.......................... 50
Martyn, Bryan, Vice Chairman, Pinal County Board of
Supervisors................................................ 39
Prepared statement on H.R. 1904.......................... 41
Stork, Ronald, Senior Policy Advocate, Friends of the River.. 95
Prepared statement on H.R. 869........................... 96
Talgo, Harrison, Former Chairman, San Carlos Apache Tribe.... 67
Prepared statement on H.R. 1904.......................... 69
Wagner, Mary, Associate Chief, U.S. Forest Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Oral statement on H.R. 473...... 6
Prepared statement on H.R. 473........................... 6
Oral statement on H.R. 1258.............................. 26
Prepared statement on H.R. 1258.......................... 26
Oral statement on H.R. 1740.............................. 11
Prepared statement on H.R. 1740.......................... 12
Oral statement on H.R. 1904.............................. 31
Prepared statement on H.R. 1904.......................... 32
Additional materials supplied:
Larsen, Hon. Rick, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington, Statement submitted for the record on
H.R. 1740.................................................. 108
List of documents retained in the Committee's official files. 16
(IV)
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1904, ``SOUTHEAST ARIZONA LAND EXCHANGE AND
CONSERVATION ACT OF 2011''; H.R. 869, ``TO CLARIFY THE DEFINITION OF
FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE OF PROJECT NO. 2179 ON THE LOWER MERCED RIVER''; H.R. 1258,
``BOX ELDER UTAH LAND CONVEYANCE ACT''; H.R. 1545, ``WACO MAMMOTH
NATIONAL MONUMENT ESTABLISHMENT ACT OF 2011''; H.R. 473, ``HELP TO
ACCESS LAND FOR THE EDUCATION OF SCOUTS OR HALE SCOUTS ACT''; AND H.R.
1740, ``TO AMEND THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT TO DESIGNATE A SEGMENT
OF ILLABOT CREEK IN SKAGIT COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AS A COMPONENT OF THE
NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM.''
----------
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m. in
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bishop, Duncan, McClintock,
Labrador, Grijalva, Holt, Garamendi, and Markey (ex officio).
Also Present: Representatives Gosar, Denham, Schweikert,
Flores, and Boren.
Mr. Bishop. All right. This hearing will come to order. The
Chairman notes the presence of a quorum. The Subcommittee on
National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands is meeting today to
hear testimony on a number of bills that fall within our
jurisdiction.
Although today's hearing will cover a couple of
controversial bills, it will also cover some non-controversial
bills that we hope to take up, and because many of the
witnesses have asked to testify today, I will remind everyone
that the time limit for all speeches is five minutes, and you
can see in front of you where that ends up.
Under the rules, opening statements are limited to the
Chairman and Ranking Member. However, I ask unanimous consent
to include any other Members' opening statements in the hearing
record if submitted to the Clerk by the close of business
today. Hearing no objections, it is so ordered.
I would also ask unanimous consent that Representative
Flores and Representative Boren, who are not Members of this
Subcommittee, be allowed to stay on the dais and participate
with us, as well as any other Member who wishes to come and
address a specific bill that he or she is proposing today. I
ask unanimous consent, and without objection, that will be so
ordered.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. Let me make my opening statement very quickly,
and then I will recognize the gentleman from Arizona, Mr.
Grijalva. You know, in each session of Congress, many bills,
and sometimes hundreds, are referred to this Subcommittee.
All are well intentioned, but not all help our country
address the real and high priority needs of our citizens for
both sound conservation, and at the same time appropriate
access to vital resources found in our vast public land system.
Today, we are going to take up six bills--from a purely
conservationist Wild and Scenic River designation, to a
carefully thought out development of a copper mining operation
that will provide high-paying jobs for thousands of workers,
and give them the opportunity to provide for the material needs
of their families.
And just as importantly help those families to have self-
respect and dignity in good jobs that they will be provided,
and because we have a lot to cover, I am going to limit my
remarks to that, and hopefully we can get started quickly.
I now defer to the Ranking Member, the Gentleman from
Arizona, Mr. Grijalva, for an opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Rob Bishop, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Utah
In each session of Congress many bills--sometimes hundreds of
bills--are referred to this Subcommittee.
All are well-intentioned but not all help our country address the
real and high priority need of our citizens for both sound conservation
and, at the same time, appropriate access to the vital resources found
on our vast system of public lands.
Today, we take up 6 bills that range from a purely preservationist
Wild and Scenic River designation to a carefully thought out bill that
authorizes development of a copper mining operation that will provide
high-paying jobs for thousands of workers, giving them the opportunity
to provide for the material needs of their families--and just as
importantly--help these families to have the self-respect and dignity
good jobs provide.
______
STATEMENT OF HON. RAUL GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. As
you noted, three of the measures before the Subcommittee
today--your legislation, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Boren's HALE
Scouts Act bill and Mr. Larsen's Wild and Scenic River bill--
are non-controversial measures that have already passed the
House.
In fact, I would like it to be noted that your bill, Mr.
Chairman, has passed the House twice while I had the privilege
of being the Chairman of this Subcommittee, and I hope that you
are as successful as we were in that time in getting this bill
through the House.
We look forward to any updates on these measures from the
witnesses today. The Waco Mammoth bill also passed the House in
the last Congress, with 85 of my Republican colleagues voting
to support the measure.
Unfortunately, the version introduced in this Congress is
drastically different from that popular bipartisan measure.
Along with other harmful changes, the bill prohibits all
Federal funding for this proposed new national park unit.
This attempt to provide the Waco Mammoth National Monument
with national status and NPS expertise, the expertise that it
deserves, while denying the unit any Federal funding, is
contradictory and unworkable.
The Administration will lay out the fatal flaws in this
approach, and it is my hope that the Subcommittee will revert
to the version of the bill which received overwhelming
bipartisan support in the last Congress.
The Lower Merced River bill is problematic as well,
amending an existing Wild and Scenic River designation to allow
the river to be inundated would be a significant step to be
taken only under very serious circumstances.
It is not clear that the changes proposed by the Merced
Irrigation District are actually necessary for flood control,
and thus this unprecedented proposal to amend the Wild and
Scenic designation must be considered very, very carefully.
I oppose the land exchange mandated by H.R. 1904, the
Resolution Copper legislation, on behalf of local environmental
communities, local native peoples, and the American taxpayers,
I worked hard as Chairman of this Subcommittee to craft
legislation that could move forward, that was transparent and
of value to the taxpayers, and conscious of all the
constituencies affected by this decision.
I intend to continue to do that in my present role on the
Committee. The known impacts of H.R. 1904 are bad enough. The
vast lucrative mining operation authorized by this legislation
will harm an area richly blessed with cultural, recreational,
and scenic resources, and will do so for the benefit of a
wealthy, multinational, mining conglomerate.
But the unknown impacts of this giant mine raise even more
serious concerns. Among the unanswered questions are: Could the
proposed mining operations under Apache Leap even collapse?
What are the potential health impacts for those living and
working in Southeastern Arizona? What are the potential impacts
on the quantity and quality of water in an already drought-
plagued area? How much profit does Rio Tinto and BHP stand to
make over the life of the mine? How reliable are the companies'
employment and economic impact projections?
The list of the unknown goes on and on, and the reason that
we have no answers to these critical questions is because H.R.
1904 short-circuits fundamental good government policies, such
as full compliance with NEPA and robust government-to-
government consultation with Native people, and that should
take place and must take place before the decision to allow
this project to move forward is made.
In the end, the real question is, if the resolution
counterproposal is truly in the best interests of the American
public, why does the legislation include so many instances
where the public's right to know is short-circuited or
eliminated?
We look forward to the insights of our witnesses on this
subject to explain this and to explain other serious problems
with this legislation. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Three of the measures before the Subcommittee today--your
legislation, Mr. Boren's HALE Scouts bill, and Mr. Larsen's Wild and
Scenic River bill--are non-controversial measures that have already
passed the House. In fact, I would like it noted that your bill, Mr.
Chairman, passed the House twice while I was the Chairman of this
Subcommittee. We look forward to any updates on these measures from our
witnesses today.
The Waco Mammoth bill also passed the House last Congress, with 85
Republicans voting to support the measure. Unfortunately, the version
introduced this Congress is drastically different from that popular,
bipartisan measure. Along with other harmful changes, the bill
prohibits all federal funding for this proposed new National Park unit.
This attempt to provide the Waco Mammoth National Monument with the
national status and NPS expertise it deserves, while denying the unit
any federal funding, is contradictory and unworkable. The
Administration will lay out the fatal flaws in this approach and it is
my hope the Subcommittee will revert to the version of this bill which
received such overwhelming support from both Democrats and Republicans
last Congress.
The Lower Merced bill is problematic as well. Amending an existing
Wild and Scenic River designation to allow the river to be inundated
would be a significant step, to be taken only under very serious
circumstances. It is not clear that the changes proposed by the Merced
Irrigation District are actually necessary for flood control and thus,
this unprecedented proposal to amend the Wild and Scenic designation
must be considered very carefully.
Finally, I fundamentally oppose the land exchange mandated by H.R.
1904, the Resolution Copper legislation. On behalf of the local
environmental community, local Native Peoples and the American
taxpayers, I worked hard as the Chairman of this Subcommittee to
prevent this legislation from moving forward and intend to continue
doing so as the Ranking Member.
The known impacts of H.R. 1904 are bad enough. The vast, lucrative
mining operation authorized by this legislation will harm an area
richly blessed with cultural, recreational and scenic resources and
will do so for the benefit of a wealthy, multinational mining
conglomerate.
But the unknown impacts of this giant mine raise even more serious
concerns. Among the unanswered questions are:
Could the proposed mining operations under Apache
Leap cause it to subside or even collapse?
What are the potential health impacts for those
living and working in southeastern Arizona?
What are the potential impacts on the quality and
quantity of water in this already drought-plagued area?
Just how much profit do Rio Tinto and BHP-Billiton
stand to make over the life of this mine?
How reliable are the company's employment and
economic impact projections?
The list of unknowns goes on and on and the reason we have no
answers to these critical questions is because H.R. 1904 short-circuits
fundamental, good-government policies--such as full compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act and robust, government-to-government
consultation with Native People--that must take place before the
decision to allow this project to move forward is made.
In the end, the real question is, if the Resolution Copper proposal
is truly in the best interests of the American public, why does the
legislation include so many instances where the public's right to know
is short-circuited?
We will look forward to the insights of our witnesses to explain
this and other serious problems with this legislation.
______
Mr. Bishop. Otherwise OK?
Mr. Grijalva. Otherwise it is fine.
Mr. Bishop. All right. We are grateful for all of you being
here. The first bill that we will consider is House Bill 473, a
conveyance of Forest Service lands to the Boy Scouts. Our
witnesses will be the author, Mr. Boren, who is on the dais,
Mary Wagner, the Associate Chief of the United States Forest
Service, and Bill Haines, who is the CEO of the Indian Nations
Council, Boy Scouts of America. Mr. Boren, we would welcome
your comments first.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAN BOREN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Mr. Boren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to thank
Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva for having this
hearing, and I would also like to thank Mr. Bill Haines for
joining us today and making himself available for questions
about the HALE Scouts bill.
This is a non-controversial piece of legislation that will
provide a conveyance of 140 acres of land in Oklahoma's
Ouachita National Forest to the Indian Nations Council of the
Boy Scouts of America.
The Indian Nations Council of the Boy Scouts of America is
a non-profit organization providing educational programs for
boys and young adults to build character, to train, to instill
the responsibilities of citizenship, and to develop personal
fitness and well-being.
Camp Tom Hale first opened in June of 1930 to serve Boy
Scouts in Oklahoma. In 1963, the Boy Scouts Council worked with
the State of Oklahoma and the United States Forest Service to
exchange the camp for 440 acres of wilderness areas in the
Ouachita National Forest.
This new Camp HALE has continued as a summer adventure
camp, serving thousands of scouts during the intervening 41
years. In 1997, the council board developed a strategic plan
for a $3.5 million expansion and renovation of the camp.
Since then, the council has spent in excess of $1 million,
continually updating and expanding facilities to meet the needs
of Scouts. As a result, a renewed emphasis on wilderness and
the outdoors has flourished.
Over 6,000 scouts and leaders from a five-State area attend
weekly sessions offered in June and July, and enjoy the
beautiful Ouachita Forest. Attendance has now exceeded the
maximum number of available camp sites and program areas, which
is causing Camp HALE to turn away hundreds of scouts each
summer.
It is now critical for camp growth that the boundaries be
extended to include more area for camping and additional
program and training services. Successful completion of this
objective will allow the Boy Scouts to continue the expansion
of outdoor and leadership training for thousands of youth
living in the Central Southwest, and bring additional usage,
and enjoyment of the Ouachita National Forest to more families.
In the last Congress, the HALE Scouts bill passed the House
without opposition and then was reported out of the Senate
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, by Senator
Lincoln without amendment. With that, I yield back and again I
want to thank Mr. Haines and all also Ms. Wagner for being
here.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Congressman. As with all our
witnesses, your written testimony is going to appear in the
full hearing record. So we are going to ask you to keep your
oral comments to five minutes.
The timer is in front of you, and you will notice that the
green light means that you have five minutes left, and when one
minute remains, it will go yellow, and then at red, we will ask
you to conclude. Ms. Wagner, if we can start with you first.
STATEMENT OF MARY WAGNER, ASSOCIATE CHIEF, U.S. FOREST SERVICE,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Ms. Wagner. Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and
Members of the Subcommittee, thanks for the opportunity to be
here and share the Department's views on H.R. 473. The
Department does not oppose this bill.
The bill would provide for the sale of approximately 140
acres of land in the Ouachita National Forest to the Indian
Nations Council of the Boy Scouts of America. We appreciate
that the bill language includes the sale of National Forest
system land for fair market value, and that the council will
pay the reasonable administrative costs for appraisals,
surveys, and other administrative analyses associated with the
land sale.
The bill authorizes the retention and use of the proceeds
from the land sale to purchase land having high priority
resource and public recreation benefits. We would like to work
with the Committee staff on technical corrections to the bill,
and to ensure bill language includes the Indian Nations
Council's agreement to the conveyance.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony, and I am happy
to answer any questions that you might have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wagner follows:]
Statement of Mary Wagner, Associate Chief, U.S. Forest Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 473: Help to Access Land for the
Education of Scouts
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
in order to provide the Department of Agriculture's view on H.R. 473.
The Department does not oppose this bill. This bill would provide for
the sale of approximately 140 acres of land in the Ouachita National
Forest in Oklahoma to the Indian Nations Council, Inc., of the Boy
Scouts of America.
The Department does not oppose this bill. This bill would provide
for the sale of approximately 140 acres of land in the Ouachita
National Forest in Oklahoma to the Indian Nations Council, Inc., of the
Boy Scouts of America.
The bill stipulates that the sale of National Forest System land
shall be for market value, as determined in an appraisal done in
conformity with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land
Acquisitions. H.R. 473 provides that the Council will pay the
reasonable administrative costs for appraisals, surveys and other
administrative analyses associated with the land sale. The bill
authorizes retention and use of the proceeds from the land sale to
purchase land and interests in land within the Ouachita National
Forest.
As background, the Council owns and operates a camp on land they
own within the Ouachita National Forest, and desires to build
additional facilities on land east of their current operation. While
the land proposed for acquisition is not identified for conveyance in
the Forest Plan, it does adjoin a sizable private in-holding owned by
the Council. The provision in the bill directing the retention of
proceeds from the sale to be used for land acquisition will allow the
Forest Service to purchase replacement lands having high priority
resource and public recreation benefits.
While the Department does not oppose H.R. 473, we would like to
work with Committee staff on technical corrections to the bill.
Additionally, the Department of Justice recommends that the bill be
revised to make absolutely clear that the Indian Nations Council, Inc.,
of the Boy Scouts of America would have to agree to the proposed
conveyance, which is what we understand Congress intends.
The bill stipulates that the sale of National Forest System land
shall be for market value, as determined in an appraisal done in
conformity with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land
Acquisitions. H.R. 473 provides that the Council will pay the
reasonable administrative costs for appraisals, surveys and other
administrative analyses associated with the land sale. The bill
authorizes retention and use of the proceeds from the land sale to
purchase land and interests in land within the Ouachita National
Forest.
As background, the Council owns and operates a camp on land they
own within the Ouachita National Forest, and desires to build
additional facilities on land east of their current operation. While
the land proposed for acquisition is not identified for conveyance in
the Forest Plan, it does adjoin a sizable private in-holding owned by
the Council. The provision in the bill directing the retention of
proceeds from the sale to be used for land acquisition will allow the
Forest Service to purchase replacement lands having high priority
resource and public recreation benefits.
While the Department does not oppose H.R. 473, we would like to
work with Committee staff on technical corrections to the bill.
Additionally, the Department of Justice recommends that the bill be
revised to make absolutely clear that the Indian Nations Council, Inc.,
of the Boy Scouts of America would have to agree to the proposed
conveyance, which is what we understand Congress intends.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony and I am happy to answer
any questions you might have.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Haines.
STATEMENT OF BILL HAINES, CEO, INDIAN NATIONS COUNCIL, BOY
SCOUTS OF AMERICA
Mr. Haines. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and the Members of
the Subcommittee. I would just like to thank you for the
opportunity to be here today, and be able to testify on H.R.
473.
I am Bill Haines, the Scout Executive and CEO of the Indian
Nations Council. On the HALE bill, it will allow the Boy Scouts
and Indian Nations Council to purchase land in the Ouachita
National Forest.
The Boy Scouts are not looking for a handout. We are
willing to pay on the fair market value. Each year, there are
over 7,000 scouts and scouters who attend our camp. Each year,
there are scouts and kids who we have to turn away because we
don't have enough land.
We have donors who are willing to help us to expand and to
make this count bigger, but we don't have the land to do that.
We are landlocked. Each year, there are a lot of boys that are
just lost on the streets, and in scouting, we teach
citizenship, to love nature, and how to protect the land.
And the Boy Scouts have always been great stewards of the
land. With the passing of this bill, it will help many scouts
for years to come. That is my testimony. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Haines follows:]
Statement of Bill Haines, Scout Executive/Chief Operating Officer,
Indian Nations Council, Boy Scouts of America, on H.R. 473
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss H.R. 473,
the `Help to Access Land for the Education of Scouts' or `HALE Scouts
Act.'
The HALE Scouts Act proposes to allow the Indian Nations Council of
the Boy Scouts of America to purchase acreage from the Ouachita
National Forest to expand summer camp operations. We have worked
extensively with the U.S. Forest Service to coordinate the purchase.
Further, the Indian Nations Council Board worked closely with
Congressman Boren's and Senator Inhofe's offices as they drafted the
HALE Scouts Act. We would like to thank Congressman Boren and Senator
Inhofe, their staff, and the U.S. Forest Service for their support and
cooperation.
Boy Scout camps develop the ``whole self'' and encourage good
citizenship. The Indian Nations Council is not looking for a handout,
only the ability to purchase additional acreage from a willing seller
at fair market value to provide great scouting experiences for more
kids.
In 1963, the Indian Nations Council acquired 480 acres from
Ouachita National Forest to establish Camp Tom Hale. Camp Tom Hale
continues to this day as an adventure camp, providing thousands of
Scouts and adult leaders each summer from around the country with a
wide variety of activities, advancement, and learning opportunities.
This summer over 6,800 Scouts will attend camp during one of its
nine sessions. During a typical week at Camp Tom Hale, scouts
participate in leadership and life skills development, nature
conservation, and value building exercises, consistent with the Boy
Scout program. Nearly 20,000 merit badges were earned for 2007 and over
1,300 rank advancements were completed by the scouts in attendance.
Attendance in 2010 was 113% of the 2009 participation. Year-over-year
program growth has been consistent. Ninety-three percent (93%) of our
Council's troops attended a long-term camp session last summer at Camp
Tom Hale.
In recent years, the Council has invested over $1 million in the
camp to accommodate increased demand for camp services. An additional
week of camping has been added, which now completely fills the summer
availability. Previously, we have added new camp sites with bathroom
and shower facilities.
We are at complete capacity and have a waiting list of troops
wishing to attend. Other recent improvements include:
New Dining Facility Seating 500
Junior Olympic Pool
Facilities for Nature Training
Lake Aquatics Training
Air-conditioned Staff Housing
Downhill Skiing Area
Horse Stables
Leadership Training Center
28,000 Gallon Water Storage & Delivery System
New Waste Disposal Lagoon with a 10,000 Scout capacity
Many Other Program & Facility Enhancements
Funding of more than $400,000 has been approved by the Indian
Nations Council Board for purchase of additional land, including the
immediate construction of infrastructure and facilities to camp 180
additional scouts per week, once the acquisition is completed. Further
funding in excess of $1.5 million has been raised for additional
camping and program facilities.
Camp Tom Hale is not just for the youth. Since 2002, Camp Tom Hale
has hosted adult leader training courses, covering a wide variety of
leadership and outdoor skill development and first aid courses. This
past year 1,500 various adult leader course completion certificates
were issued. In addition, First Aid and CPR Certification was offered,
resulting in 232 leaders completing adult CPR with AED, 126 were
certified in First Aid, and 261 adults completed Wilderness First Aid.
Due to the growth of the scouting program in eastern Oklahoma,
attendance at Camp Tom Hale has outgrown the program capacity, causing
us to turn away hundreds of scouts each summer. The critical need to
serve more scouts requires additional space to allow us to maintain the
quality of camping and experience for our scouts and their adult
leaders. Boundaries must now be extended to include more area for
camping and for additional program and training services.
Passage of the HALE Act will provide the space needed to allow over
1,500 additional scouts the ability to go to camp.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. I
appreciate the continued support and cooperation of Congressman Boren,
Senator Inhofe and the U.S. Forest Service. I would be pleased to
answer any questions.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate both of you for the
testimony that you have given. I have no questions for these
witnesses. Mr. Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Let's go back and forth. Are there any
questions? Representative Duncan, or Representative Boren?
Representative Gosar? Representative Markey, do you have
questions for this witness?
Mr. Markey. It might come in the form of--well, sometimes
my questions come in the form of answers.
Mr. Bishop. We have all questioned your answers all the
time, but for the next bill. Representative Flores. All right.
We appreciate your time with us today. Thank you, Mr. Haines,
and Ms. Wagner, we would ask you if you would stay at the table
for the next bill. Thank you. Representative Boren, thank you
very much. Mr. Markey.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Markey. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Mr.
Chairman, 1955 was a good year. The Salk vaccine was approved.
The Brooklyn Dodgers won their first World Series, and in
Seattle, Washington, William and Mary Gates welcomed the birth
of their son, Bill.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Markey, if I can stop you right there. The
1955 Yankees lost, and if you are going to go farther with
this, I am going to stop you right now.
Mr. Markey. In Boston, we identify with the Dodgers.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Fine.
Mr. Markey. And it all relates to the Yankees, of course,
in Boston and in Brooklyn, although we had to wait another 40
years, or no, 50 years, to finally have the curse removed from
our heads.
And at the White House, Mr. Chairman, President Dwight
Eisenhower issued Public Land Order 1229, withdrawing 760 acres
of Federal land known as Oak Flat in Southeastern Arizona from
further mining development.
And here we are 56 years later, and the question being
asked is, after more than five decades, haven't we conserved
this area long enough?. Polio has been wiped out in the
developed world, and Bill Gates is retired, and in the name of
progress and for the promise of jobs, isn't it time to end our
capital stewardship of this land, and hand it over to
development, and just like the Dodgers, move out?
The answer, Mr. Chairman, is No. The proponents of H.R.
1904 accurately describe the bill as a land exchange, and urge
a capital analysis of the bill's procedural provisions. In
other words, we are encouraged to conduct a surface analysis of
this mining legislation when, ironically, what we need to do is
to dig much deeper.
The public needs to have a clear picture of what is gained,
and what is being lost in this exchange. Yes, the public stands
to gain roughly 5,000 acres of land through this exchange, and
by all accounts, much of that acreage is desirable and worthy
of preservation.
Further, we are told, there will be jobs created in this
mine. Of course, much of the work will be automated and
controlled offsite, but certainly some limited number of jobs
will be created.
It is true that the company would pay an unspecified amount
for the copper they would mine. That is what we would gain.
Unfortunately, the true costs of all of that would be lost, and
that has yet to be counted.
Those costs would be paid in water. Block and cave mining
operations, 7,000 feet below sea level, in an already arid and
drought-prone area, could devastate the quality and quantity of
drinking water for thousands of people living and working in
the area.
Those costs will be paid by the recreation community, who
will see an area renowned for camping, hiking, and world-class
rock climbing, carved into a matrix of tunnels and pits. Those
costs will be paid by native people, who will watch as an area
sacred to them since well before 1955 is desecrated and
potentially even destroyed.
Finally, the American taxpayers will bear the costs of
handing over billions of dollars in mineral resources to a
foreign company for international sale without a fair return,
and what is worse, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1904 not only fails to
fairly or even fully capture these costs, the bill specifically
seeks to circumvent the public process designed to calculate
these values by waiving meaningful compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act, and timely tribal consultation, H.R.
1904 urges us to move along, and assures us that there is
nothing to see here.
Mr. Chairman, the last version of this legislation included
a requirement that the Secretary make a formal determination
that the proposed exchange was in the public interest before it
could go through.
The fact that the public interest determination has been
stripped from this bill should tell us everything that we need
to know about H.R. 1904. I yield back the balance of my time,
Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Edward J. Markey, Ranking Member,
Committee on Natural Resources
Thank you.
1955 was a good year, Mr. Chairman. The Salk vaccine was approved,
the Brooklyn Dodgers won their first World Series and in Seattle
Washington, William and Mary Gates welcomed the birth of their son,
Bill.
And at the White House, President Dwight Eisenhower issued Public
Land Order 1229, withdrawing 760 acres of federal land known as Oak
Flat in southeastern Arizona from further mining development.
And here we are, 56 years later, and the question being asked is,
after more than 5 decades, haven't we conserved this area long enough?
Polio has been wiped out in the developed world and Bill Gates is
retired. In the name of progress, and for the promise of jobs, isn't it
time to end our careful stewardship of this land, hand it over to
development, and just like the Dodgers, move out? The answer, Mr.
Chairman, is no.
The proponents of H.R. 1904 accurately describe the bill as a land
exchange and urge a careful analysis of the bill's procedural
provisions. In other words, we are encouraged to conduct a surface
analysis of this mining legislation when, ironically, what we need to
do is dig much deeper.
The public needs to have a clear picture of what is being gained,
and what is being lost in this exchange. Yes, the public stands to gain
roughly 5,000 acres of land through this exchange and, by all accounts,
much of that acreage is desirable and worthy of preservation.
Further, we are told there will be jobs created in this mine. Of
course, much of the work will be automated, and controlled off-site,
but certainly some limited number of jobs will be created.
And it's true that the company would pay an unspecified amount for
the copper they would mine.
That is what we would gain. Unfortunately, the true costs of all
that would be lost have yet to be counted.
Those costs will be paid in water. Block and cave mining operations
seven thousand feet below sea level, in an already arid and drought-
prone area, could devastate the quality and quantity of drinking water
for thousands of people living and working in the area.
Those costs will be paid by the recreation community who will see
an area renowned for camping, hiking, and world-class rock climbing
carved into a matrix of tunnels and pits.
Those costs will be paid by Native People who will watch as an area
sacred to them since well before 1955 is desecrated and potentially
even destroyed.
And finally, the American taxpayers will bear the cost of handing
over billions of dollars in mineral resources to a foreign company for
international sale without a fair return.
What's worse, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1904 not only fails to fairly--or
even fully--capture these costs, the bill specifically seeks to
circumvent the public process designed to calculate these values. By
waiving meaningful compliance with the National Environmental Policy
Act and timely Tribal consultation, H.R. 1904 urges us to move along
and assures us that there is nothing to see here.
Mr. Chairman, the last version of this legislation included a
requirement that the Secretary make a formal determination that the
proposed exchange was in the public interest before it could go
through. The fact that the public interest determination has been
stripped from this bill should tell you everything you need to know
about H.R. 1904.
______
Mr. Bishop. I thank the Ranking Member of the Full
Committee, and I appreciate him reminding us that the Dodgers
never won again until they changed their environment. All
right. Our second bill is H.R. 1740, a Wild and Scenic River
designation, sponsored by Mr. Larsen of Washington, who is not
here with us.
We will also hear again from Mary Wagner, who is the
Associate Chief of the United States Forest Service, and Ms.
Lisa Bellefond, if I am pronouncing that correctly, who is the
Federal Government Relations Director for The Nature
Conservancy. So, Ms. Wagner.
STATEMENT OF MARY WAGNER, ASSOCIATE CHIEF, U.S. FOREST SERVICE,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Ms. Wagner. Members of the Committee, thank you again for
the opportunity to share the Department's views on H.R. 1740,
which amends Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic River Act to
designate two segments of Illabot Creek in Skagit County,
Washington, as a component of the National Wild and Scenic
River System.
We strongly support this legislation. Illabot Creek
provides exceptional spawning and rearing habitat for summer
and fall chinook, coho, chum, and pink salmon, native
steelhead, and one of the largest populations of bull trout in
the Skagit River watershed.
Illabot Creek also supports the highest density of chum and
pink salmon in the Skagit River watershed, and provides habitat
for one of the largest concentrations of wintering bald eagles
in the Continental United States.
Mr. Chairman, we recommend that the Subcommittee consider
designating all of Illabot Creek, from its headwaters to its
confluence with the Skagit River, as recommended in the Mt.
Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Plan.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony, and I am happy
to answer any questions that you might have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wagner follows:]
Statement of Mary Wagner, Associate Chief, U.S. Forest Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 1740
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide the views of the
Department of Agriculture on H.R. 1740.
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Public Law 90-542 (16 U.S.C. 1271--
1287, as amended) protects the free-flowing condition, water quality,
and outstandingly remarkable natural, cultural, and recreational values
of some of our most precious rivers. It also provides an opportunity to
build partnerships among landowners, river users, tribal nations, and
all levels of government.
This bill amends Sec. 3(a) of the Act to designate a segment of
Illabot Creek in Skagit County, Washington, as a component of the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. It adds 14.3 miles in two
segments: 4.3 miles from the headwaters to the Glacier Peak Wilderness
boundary classified as wild, and 10 miles from the Glacier Peak
Wilderness boundary to approximately 1000 feet south of the Rockport-
Cascade road classified as recreational.
We strongly support the legislation.
The segment to be designated by H.R. 1740 is a tributary of the
Skagit River, which was added to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
System in 1978. It is located on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National
Forest, approximately 100 miles northeast of Seattle, Washington and
flows from the glaciers of the North Cascades into the upper Skagit
River, the largest tributary to Puget Sound.
Illabot Creek provides exceptional spawning and rearing habitat for
summer and fall Chinook, coho, chum and pink salmon; native steelhead;
and, one of the largest populations of bull trout in the Skagit River
watershed. Puget Sound Chinook, steelhead and bull trout are listed
under the Endangered Species Act. Illabot Creek also supports the
highest density of chum and pink salmon in the Skagit River watershed
and provides habitat for wintering bald eagles. Eagles using the
Illabot roost are a part of one of the largest concentration of
wintering bald eagles in the continental United States.
Mr. Chairman, we recommend the Subcommittee consider designating
all of Illabot Creek, from its headwaters to its confluence with the
Skagit River (16.3 miles) as recommended in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie
National Forest Plan (June 1990). This includes the lower 2 miles,
classified as a recreational river, of which approximately 1.4 miles is
in the Skagit Wild and Scenic River Corridor. With the designation of
Illabot Creek as proposed in H.R. 1740, only 0.6 mile is not included
in either Illabot Creek Wild and Scenic River or the existing Skagit
Wild and Scenic River corridor. The lower 2 miles includes some of the
most important fish spawning habitat and an important foraging and
roosting area for wintering bald eagles. Much of this area is in the
Skagit River Bald Eagle Natural Area and dedicated to resource
protection.
This concludes my prepared statement and I would be pleased to
answer any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Ms. Bellefond.
STATEMENT OF LISA BELLEFOND, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
DIRECTOR, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
Ms. Bellefond. Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today in
support of H.R. 1740. I am Lisa Bellefond, Director of Federal
Government Relations for the Washington State Program of The
Nature Conservancy.
The Conservancy is dedicated to preserving the plants and
animals in the natural communities that represent the diversity
of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need
to survive.
Our conservation work is grounded in pragmatism, sound
science, partnerships with private, tribal, and public
landowners, and tangible results in local places. For more than
30 years, The Conservancy has been working in collaboration
with local partners to preserve the mighty Skagit River.
In 1976, the Conservancy and the Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife created the Skagit River Bald Eagle Natural
Area. In winter, bald eagles now gather by the hundreds to feed
on returning salmon, inspiring a popular annual festival that
boosts the local economy.
The project includes other landowning partners, such as
Skagit County, Washington State Parks, Washington Department of
Natural Resources, Seattle City Light, and the Forest Service.
Together, we have cooperated to preserve more than 9,000
acres of eagle habitat, including more than 10 miles of river,
and thousands of acres of forests. About 1300 acres are owned
and managed by The Nature Conservancy.
Amending the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to include Illabot
Creek, which is a tributary of the Skagit River, complements
the significant investments that have been made at the local
level to protect the special area.
It also complements the trout and salmon fisheries recovery
efforts underway in the Skagit Basin. This designation would
protect water flows, and help to ensure that Illabot Creek
continues to be a source of cold, clean water to Puget Sound,
and provide exceptional habitat for steelhead and bull trout.
Illabot is one of the most important areas for bull trout
in the Skagit Basin, and the Skagit River has the greatest
abundance of bull trout in Washington. Bull trout are one of
the keystone species in this basin. They rely on extremely cold
and extremely clean water, and so their presence is an
indicator of a healthy aquatic ecosystem.
In Puget Sound, bull trout are Federally listed as
threatened, largely because land uses have degraded water
quality, and warmed the waters once hospitable to the waters
once hospitable to these fish.
But in places like Illabot Creek, ample cold clean water
exists fore a core population of bull trout to exist. It is
these core populations that will be relied upon to reestablish
bull trout and to achieve delisting.
In light of the important fish and wildlife resources in
the Illabot Creek watershed, and a history of voluntary land
protection efforts, The Nature Conservancy and our many
partners, that include the Skagit County Commissioners, Skagit
Fisheries Enhancement Group, Western Washington Agricultural
Association, Seattle City Light, Janke Logging and
Construction, American Rivers, and the Washington Council of
Trout Unlimited, all support H.R. 1740. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment on this legislation.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bellefond follows:]
Statement of Lisa Bellefond, Director of Federal Government Relations,
The Nature Conservancy, Washington State Program, on H.R. 1740
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today in support of H.R. 1740 to amend the Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a segment of Illabot Creek in Skagit
County, Washington, as a component of the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System. I am Lisa Bellefond, Director of Federal Government
Relations for the Washington Chapter of The Nature Conservancy.
The Nature Conservancy is dedicated to preserving the plants,
animals and the natural communities that represent the diversity of
life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive.
The Conservancy has more than 1 million individual members and we have
programs in all 50 states and in 30 countries.
Our conservation work is grounded in pragmatism, sound science,
partnerships with private, tribal and public landowners, and tangible
results in local places. For more than 30 years, The Nature Conservancy
has been working in collaboration with partners to preserve the mighty
Skagit River. In 1976, the Conservancy and the Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife created the Skagit River Bald Eagle Natural Area. In
winter, bald eagles now gather by the hundreds to feed on returning
salmon, inspiring a popular annual festival that boosts the local
economy. The project includes another six landowning partners and has
preserved more than 9,000 acres of eagle habitat, including more than
10 miles of river and thousands of acres of forests. About 1,300 acres
are owned and managed by the Conservancy.
Amending the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to include Illabot Creek, a
tributary of the Skagit River, complements the significant investments
that have been made at the local level to protect this special area in
addition to the salmon and trout recovery efforts within the Skagit
basin. This designation would protect water flows and help to ensure
that Illabot Creek continues to be a source of cold, clean water to
Puget Sound and provide habitat for Steelhead and Bull trout.
Illabot is one of the most important areas for Bull trout in the
Skagit Basin, and the Skagit River has the greatest abundance of Bull
trout in Washington. Bull trout are the keystone species in this basin.
They rely on extremely cold and extremely clean water, so their
presence is an indicator of a healthy aquatic ecosystem.
In Puget Sound, Bull trout are federally listed as threatened,
largely because land uses have degraded water quality and warmed the
waters once hospitable to Bull trout. But, in places like Illabot
Creek, ample cold clean water exists for a ``core population'' of Bull
trout to exist. It is these ``core populations'' that will be relied
upon to reestablish Bull trout and to achieve delisting. Wild and
Scenic designation will ensure these fish have undammed, free-flowing
cold and clean water essential for recovery.
In addition, the lower reach of Illabot Creek and Illabot Slough
are especially important habitat for chum and pink salmon, providing
some of the highest density spawning habitat in the basin for those
species. Mature and old growth forest habitats along the creek provide
important bald eagle roosting habitat.
In light of the important fish and wildlife resources in the
Illabot Creek watershed and the history of voluntary land protection
efforts, The Nature Conservancy supports H.R. 1740. This Wild and
Scenic designation would protect instream flows, complement fish
recovery efforts in the Skagit basin, and help protect the investments
that private and public land managers have made in protecting Illabot
Creek.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important
legislation.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, both of you, for your written, as
well as oral testimony. I have no questions of these witnesses.
Mr. Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Yes, one quick question for both if you don't
mine. The testimony from the Administration suggests expanding
the proposed designation to cover even more of the creek. Could
you both react and expand on the pros and cons of that
recommendation suggestion?
Ms. Wagner. Mr. Grijalva, the bill establishes the lower
terminus for the creek at a thousand feet south of the Rock
Port Cascade Road, excluding the lower two miles of Illabot
Creek.
Of this lower two miles, approximately 1.4 miles is already
in the Skagit Wild and Scenic River Corridor. So that leaves .6
miles of Illabot Creek outside of a river corridor. So we are
just suggesting that it might be worth considering from an
efficiency standpoint, and from a standpoint of considerations
under Section 7(a) of the Wild and Scenic River Act including
that section of the river in this designation.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Ms. Bellefond. My comments are from local feedback, and
working with the Skagit County Commissioners, and with the
Public Works Department. We receive feedback that it would be
in the best interests to move the designation toward the
bridge.
The bridge is having some reconstruction efforts that are
to remove pilings out of the river so that way the--out of
Illabot Creek, which would benefit the fisheries, and the
project has been very collaborative and voluntary.
So we took feedback from the County Commissioners for the
area beyond Illabot Creek. It has a great deal of land that is
owned by The Nature Conservancy and managed for these fisheries
value. So we will continue to protect that area.
But there are a very small number of private land holdings
there. Some of these landholdings are actually--have easements
that are to benefit salmon fisheries, but the landowners would
prefer not to have the designation.
So that was the understanding when we put together this
bill, which was to get local feedback from the county
commissioners, and the local community, and that is what we put
forward.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Duncan, any questions?
[Pause.]
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Markey, any questions?
[Pause.]
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Flores, any questions?
[Pause.]
Mr. Bishop. If not, we thank both of you for your testimony
on this particular bill. Our third bill is 1545, a bill to
establish the Waco Mammoth National Monument, which was
introduced by Mr. Flores of Texas.
Testifying for the Department of the Interior will be
Marcilynn Burke, the Deputy Director of the Bureau of Land
Management, and we will also hear from Larry Groth, the City
Manager of Waco. If I could ask both of them to come to the
table.
I appreciate having both of you here. The same thing. Your
written statement will appear in the record. You see how the
clock works in front of you for your oral statements.
First of all, we will turn to the sponsor of the bill, Mr.
Flores, for any statement that he would like to make.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL FLORES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member
Grijalva, and Members of the Subcommittee for holding today's
hearing. My legislation, H.R. 1545, would recognize and
establish the Waco Mammoth site as the Waco Mammoth National
Monument, included as a unit of the National Park Service.
The Committee has received 29 letters of support from local
leaders and organizations, and schoolchildren, and I would ask
unanimous consent that these letters of support for H.R., 1545
be included in the record.
Mr. Bishop. Without objection, so ordered.
The documents listed below were submitted for the record
and have been retained in the Committee's official files.
Association of California Water Agencies, Letter to Rep.
Denham expressing support for H.R. 869
Chart, Illustrating Unemployment Rates in California, San
Joaquin, Mendota, Firebaugh, and Huron, 2003-2010 vs CVP Water
Allocation
City of Livingston, CA, Resolution in support of H.R. 869
Congressman Flores, Multiple Letters in Support of H.R.
1545
Defenders of Wildlife, Letter to Chairman Bishop and
Ranking Member Grijalva expressing opposition to H.R. 869
Friends of the River, Chronology of Merced River W&S
Bills
Friends of the River, Statement from hearing on S. 549,
March 21, 1991
Hing, Michael, Mayor, Photo showing Superior, AZ
Horizon Holdings LLC, Letter to Rep. Denham expressing
support for H.R. 869
Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Resolution opposing H.R.
1904
Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Resolution opposing S.
3157
Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Resolution opposing S.
409
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Letter
to Sen. Feinstein expressing support for H.R. 869
Merced County Board of Supervisors, Resolution in support
of H.R. 869
Merced County Farm Bureau, Letter to Rep. Denham
expressing support for H.R. 869
Merced Irrigation District, Document showing specifics of
Spillway Modification Project
Pattea, Clinton M., President, Fort McDowell Yavapai
Nation, Statement regarding H.R. 1904
Paramount Farming Company, Letter to Rep. Denham
expressing support for H.R. 869
Rambler, Terry, Chairman, The San Carlos Apache Tribe,
Testimony Regarding H.R. 1904
Resolution Copper, Executive Summary of Economic and
Fiscal Impact Report, Superior, AZ June 2011
Resolution Copper, Letter to Congressman Gosar promising
to protect Apache Leap
Resolution Copper, Map of Copper Triangle
Resolution Copper, Map of Land and Mineral Ownership
Resolution Copper, Map Showing Existing Mine Activity
San Joaquin River Water Authority, Letter to Rep. Denham
expressing support for H.R. 869
U.S. Forest Service, Map of H.R. 1258
U.S. Forest Service, Map of H.R. 473
Wetlands Water District, Letter to Rep. Denham expressing
support for H.R. 869
______
Mr. Flores. On a spring day in 1978, Waco residents, Paul
Bartron and Eddie Bufkin, were out looking for arrowheads and
fossils along the Bosque River, and just happened across a
large bone protruding from the earth.
Realizing the possible significance of this discovery, Mr.
Barron and Mr. Bufkin immediately took the bone to the Strecker
Museum at Baylor University for analysis. Little did they know
at the time that they had just stumbled upon what is today
believed to be the world's largest concentration of Columbian
Mammoths to die in a single event.
Over a period of nearly 30 years, crews of paleontological
and archaeological experts, scientists, and volunteers, slowly
excavated this lost world, eventually unearthing more than two
dozen mammoths, as well as the remains of a camel, a still
unidentified animal, and the tooth from a saber-tooth cat.
It is amazing that the initial discovery of one bone led to
such a massive, world-renowned collection allowing us a farther
glimpse into our world's prehistoric times.
The National Park Service conducted a special resource
study of the Waco Mammoth site, first authorized in 2002, and
completed in 2008. This study concluded that the site possesses
nationally significant resources, is a suitable addition to the
system, and would be a feasible addition to the system.
On the fourth criteria of a need of direct NPS management,
the study cites an appropriateness to investigate the potential
for inclusion of the site in the National Park System, and for
the National Park Service to take on key roles in a partnership
arrangement, and I stress partnership.
Currently the National Park Service has a $10 billion
backlog. Given our current fiscal situation, H.R. 1545 has been
drafted to provide the national recognition the site deserves,
without adding additional burdens to the Federal budget or the
backlog at NPS.
In 2006, a non-profit organization of local citizens
established the Waco Mammoth Foundation to make the site a
public park. A seamless partnership exists between the City of
Waco, Baylor University, and local community leaders and
volunteers, who have all worked so hard for decades to
safeguard the site.
The Foundation has demonstrated their commitment to
showcasing this discovery, and has already raised more than $4
million for the site. The Waco Mammoth Foundation completed its
first phase of improvements with a visitor center that
officially opened to the public at the end of 2009.
The Waco Mammoth site should be recognized for its
incredible collection of prehistoric artifacts. H.R. 1545 would
allow the National Park Service to capitalize on the efforts of
this unique partnership consisting of private and community
investment.
I have personally toured the mammoth site, and I am proud
to say to my colleagues that it is truly a site of national
recognition. I believe that it is time to develop a new model
to leverage the support of committed local citizens and
supporters in order to protect, maintain, and promote the
assets of national significance, while at the same time
avoiding additional strains on precious taxpayer resources.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's hearing.
I would also like to extend my appreciation to the Waco City
Manager, Larry Groth, for his dedication in seeking this
recognition and for testifying today.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on the
Committee to ensure this national recognition becomes a
reality, and this new partnership approach with the National
Park Service will allow the citizens of Waco to share this true
national treasure in Central Texas with the rest of the world.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Flores follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Bill Flores, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas
Thank you Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of
the subcommittee for holding today's hearing. My legislation, H.R.
1545, would recognize and establish the Waco Mammoth site as the Waco
Mammoth National Monument and include it as a unit of the National Park
Service.
On a spring day in 1978, Waco residents Paul Barron and Eddie
Bufkin were out looking for arrowheads and fossils along the Bosque
River and just happened to come across a large bone protruding from the
earth. Realizing the possible significance of this discovery, Mr.
Barron and Mr. Bufkin immediately took the bone to the Strecker Museum
at Baylor University for analysis. Little did they know at the time
that they had just stumbled upon what is today believed to be the
world's largest concentration of Columbian Mammoths to die in a single
event.
Over a period of nearly 30 years, crews of paleontological and
archaeological experts, scientists and volunteers slowly excavated this
lost world, eventually unearthing more than two dozen mammoths as well
as the remains of a camel, a still unidentified animal and a tooth from
a saber-tooth cat. It is amazing that the initial discovery of one bone
led to such a massive, world-renowned collection allowing us a further
glimpse into our world's prehistoric times.
The National Park Service conducted a Special Resource Study of the
Waco Mammoth site, first authorized in 2002 and completed in 2008. This
study concluded that the site possesses nationally significant
resources, is a suitable addition to the system and would be a feasible
addition to the system. On the fourth criteria of a need for direct NPS
management, the study cites an appropriateness ``to investigate the
potential for inclusion of the site in the National Park System and for
the National Park Service to take on key roles in a partnership
arrangement.''
Currently, the National Park Service has a $10 billion backlog.
Given our current fiscal situation, H.R. 1545 has been drafted to
provide the national recognition the site deserves, without adding
additional burdens to the federal budget or the backlog at NPS. In
2006, a non-profit organization of local citizens established the Waco
Mammoth Foundation to make the site a public park. A seamless
partnership exists between the City of Waco, Baylor University, and
local community leaders and volunteers who have all worked so hard for
decades to safeguard the site. The Foundation has demonstrated their
commitment to showcasing this discovery and has already raised more
than $4 million for the site. The Waco Mammoth Foundation completed its
first phase of improvements with a visitor center that officially
opened to the public at the end of 2009. The Waco Mammoth site should
be recognized for its incredible collection of prehistoric artifacts.
H.R. 1545 would allow the National Park Service to capitalize on the
efforts of this unique partnership consisting of private and community
investment. I have personally toured the mammoth site, and I am proud
to say to my colleagues that it is truly a site of national
recognition.
Thank you again Mr. Chairman for holding today's hearing. I would
also like to extend my appreciation to Waco City Manager Larry Groth
for his dedication to seeking this recognition and for testifying
today. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the committee to
ensure this national recognition becomes a reality, and this new
partnership approach with the National Park Service will allow the
citizens of Waco to share this true national treasure in Central Texas
with the world.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Congressman. Mr. Burke.
STATEMENT OF MARCILYNN BURKE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Burke. Good morning, and thank you for this opportunity
to testify on behalf of the Department of the Interior on H.R.
1545, which would establish the Waco Mammoth National Monument.
With me today is Patrick Gregerson, and he is the National Park
Service Chief of Planning, and he is available to answer any
questions that you may have.
H.R. 1545 would establish the Waco Mammoth National
Monument in Texas. The Department supports establishing a unit
of the National Park Service at this site, consistent with the
study that the National Park Service completed in 2008.
However, we oppose H.R. 1545 in its current form. The bill
contains significant changes to the version of this legislation
introduced in the last Congress. It requires the Secretary to
administer the national monument as a unit of the National Park
System, but prohibits the Secretary from expending any Federal
funds to do so.
That would create an untenable situation. We would like to
work with the sponsor and the Committee to address these
concerns. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today,
and Mr. Gregerson will be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Burke follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by the National Park Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 1545
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
H.R. 1545, a bill to establish the Waco Mammoth National Monument in
the State of Texas, and for other purposes.
The Department supports establishing a unit of the National Park
System to commemorate and protect the Waco Mammoth site consistent with
the study the National Park Service (NPS) completed in 2008. However,
we oppose H.R. 1545 in its current form. The Department testified in
support of H.R. 1376, a similar bill, before this subcommittee on April
23, 2009, during the last Congress. During this Congress, we testified
before the Senate Subcommittee on National Parks, on May 11, 2011, in
opposition to S. 849, a bill identical to H.R. 1545. As we explain in
this testimony, H.R. 1545 contains significant changes to the last
Congress's bill. It requires the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary)
to administer the national monument as a unit of the National Park
System--but prohibits the Secretary from expending any federal funds to
do so. We would like to work with the sponsor and the committee on
revising the bill so that we could support it.
H.R. 1545 would establish a new unit of the National Park System,
the Waco Mammoth National Monument (monument), near the city of Waco,
Texas. The bill directs the Secretary to administer the monument in
accordance only with the provisions found in the bill and with any
cooperative agreements entered into with Baylor University and the City
of Waco. The bill also authorizes the Secretary to acquire land for the
monument by donation from the City of Waco. The Secretary is authorized
to complete a General Management Plan for the monument within three
years after enactment, but prohibited from expending any federal funds
to do so. Finally, no federal funds are authorized to be used to pay
for costs associated with the monument, and designation of the monument
as a unit of the National Park System shall terminate if the Secretary
determines that federal funds are required to operate and maintain the
monument.
The NPS was directed to complete a Special Resource Study (SRS) of
the Waco Mammoth site by Public Law 107-341. This study evaluated a
109-acre site owned by the City of Waco and Baylor University and found
that the site met all the criteria for designation as a unit of the
National Park System.
The Waco Mammoth Site area is located approximately 4.5 miles north
of the center of Waco, near the confluence of the Brazos and the Bosque
rivers. Baylor University has been investigating the site since 1978
after hearing about bones emerging from eroding creek banks that led to
the uncovering of portions of five mammoths. Since then several
additional mammoth remains have been uncovered making this the largest
known concentration of mammoths dying from the same event.
The discoveries have received international attention and many of
the remains have been excavated and are in storage or still being
researched. The SRS determined that the combination of both in situ
articulated skeletal remains and the excavated specimens from the site
represents the nation's first and only recorded nursery herd of
Pleistocene mammoths. The resource possesses exceptional interpretive
value and superlative opportunities for visitor enjoyment and
scientific study.
From the time the site was discovered until the present, the
University and the City have managed the site responsibly. The SRS
examined a range of proposed options for the NPS involvement at the
site. We believe that the NPS joining in partnership with the city of
Waco, Baylor University, and others would offer the most effective and
cost-efficient management of this unique resource.
The provisions in H.R. 1545 contradict each other by requiring the
Secretary to administer the monument as a unit of the National Park
System, but then deleting the reference to the laws applicable to such
units, and prohibiting the expenditure of federal funds to carry out
the administration of the monument. Expenditure of funds is
specifically prohibited for carrying out the cooperative agreement for
management of the monument, acquiring land, developing a visitor
center, operating or maintaining the monument, constructing exhibits,
or developing the General Management Plan.
The National Park Service preserves and protects areas of the
country that are found to be nationally significant. If the Waco
Mammoth site were designated a unit of the National Park System to be
administered by the Secretary, then the laws applicable to such units
would need to apply and federal funds would be needed to carry out
those responsibilities, as they are for all other units of the National
Park System.
The ambiguity as to the applicable laws and the lack of certainty
and continuity of non-federal funding could create an untenable
situation for staffing the park and providing consistent visitor
services. This uncertainty could lead to the NPS not knowing from month
to month whether the park would be open. Also, federal land acquisition
policies generally do not allow the federal government to accept lands
acquired with a reverter clause attached, as proposed in the bill.
We would be happy to work with the committee to revise the bill
into a form that we could support, such as H.R. 1376 from the 111th
Congress. In that version of the bill, the monument would be
established based upon the management alternative recommended in the
SRS, where we estimated that the costs to create the monument would
include $8.1 million from the identified partners to develop the
facilities at the monument, with the NPS providing an additional
$600,000 for enhanced interpretive media. Total operational costs are
estimated to be $645,000 with the NPS contributing approximately
$345,000 for the NPS staffing of four full-time equivalent positions
and associated supplies, materials, and equipment. All funds would be
subject to NPS priorities and the availability of appropriations.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you or other members of the Subcommittee may
have.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, and if he would like to join you at
the table just in case that would be fine. Mr. Groth.
STATEMENT OF LARRY GROTH, CITY MANAGER,
CITY OF WACO, TEXAS
Mr. Groth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Committee Members.
My name is Larry Groth, and I am the City Manager of the City
of Waco. I am here today to urge your favorable consideration
of the establishment of the Waco Mammoth site as a national
monument.
As Congressman Flores mentioned, the site does contain over
24 Columbian Mammoths, ranging from 3 to 55 years old, which
appear to have died in approximately 68,000 years ago, and does
make it the largest concentration in North America.
We all seem to complain about the wheels of government
moving slowly, not only at the Federal level, and the State
level, and at my level locally, but I suppose these mammoths
probably 68,000 years old, probably decided that it is time for
us to get something done.
We have been worked on this for a long time, and we
certainly would like to see some movement. We mentioned the
Natural Resource Study, and there is no debate at all about the
significance.
There is no debate about the national significance of the
site. There is no debate about the site being suitable as an
addition to the system, and there is no debate about it being
feasible as a unit of the National Park System.
I am pleased to report that we have raised a lot of money
locally to get the site open to the public. Our biggest concern
was the degradation of the bones that are in situ at the site,
and so we built a protective cover. We built a small visitors
center, and check-in, and we built access so that the public
can come and view the site, and we can also protect this
wonderful resource.
Since construction, we have had over 40,000 visitors with
very little advertising on our part. They have come out and
visited the site, and we are pleased with that. We believe that
favorable consideration of this issue would greatly enhance our
efforts to protect and interpret this fantastic national
treasure.
Bringing the National Park Service in as a partner with the
City of Waco and Baylor university would greatly strengthen an
already strong relationship. Most importantly, we are not
asking for Federal dollars for capital. We have already raised
that.
We are not asking for Federal dollars for operation and
maintenance. We are committed as a city to provide that. What
we need is the National Park Service to be given the authority
to work with us to make this happen.
We do greatly appreciate Congressman Flores' efforts on our
behalf, and on this site, and we thank you. The main thing is
please help us to get that wonderful arrowhead.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Groth follows:]
Statement of Larry D. Groth, P.E., City Manager,
City of Waco, Texas, on H.R. 1545
Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, my name is Larry D. Groth and I
am City Manager for the City of Waco. I am here today to urge your
favorable consideration for H.R. 1545.
We are extremely fortunate to have a paleontological site in Waco
that has national significance. In 1978, two of our local citizens
discovered some large bones in a ravine in north Waco near the
confluence of the Brazos and Bosque Rivers. This discovery was the
first of more than 24 Columbian Mammoths ranging from 3 to 55 years
old, which appear to have died approximately 68,000 years ago. There
are also indications of more mammoth remains near the existing
excavations. This makes the Waco site the largest concentration in
North America of extinct mammoths. It provides a unique opportunity for
all of us to understand and interpret the behavior and ecology of an
extinct species.
This discovery has already received international attention with
archeologists, geologists, and paleontologists from the U. S., Sweden,
and Great Britain visiting the site during the past several years.
Integrity of the scientific data has been protected since the site has
been under investigation by a single agency, Baylor University, since
1978. The City of Waco and Baylor University have partnered to protect
the remains and secure sufficient property surrounding the site for
future development of the resource. Over 105 acres surrounding the dig
site has been secured with access to the Bosque River to enhance
recreational opportunities.
In December 2002, a special resource study by the National Park
Service was authorized for the Waco site. The study found that the Waco
Mammoth Site met the requirements of being nationally significant,
being a suitable addition to the system and a feasible addition to the
system. The need for direct management by the National Park Service was
not absolute, but a partnership was highly recommended to achieve the
development and protection goals of the site to its fullest extent.
In 2006, the City of Waco and Baylor University chartered the Waco
Mammoth Foundation to initiate a major fund raising campaign to
construct the first phase of site development which provided for a
permanent structure to protect the dig site, a small visitor and
ticketing center, and access to the site.
I am pleased to report that we have raised over $4 million, mostly
local donations, and have completed the phase I construction. More than
40,000 visitors have enjoyed the site since opening.
Favorable consideration for H.R. 1545 would greatly enhance our
efforts to protect and interpret this fantastic national treasure.
Bringing in the National Park Service as a partner with the City of
Waco and Baylor University would greatly strengthen an already strong
relationship. It would provide an opportunity to maximize each of our
strengths in the management and development of this resource.
Most importantly, we are not asking for federal dollars for capital
or operations & maintenance since we are providing that locally. We are
only asking for the national recognition this site deserves. We need
the National Parks Service to be given the authority to work with us
and make this happen. Your favorable consideration of H.B. 1545 will
greatly leverage our local efforts.
Also, we greatly appreciate Congressman Flores' efforts on our
behalf and for this unique opportunity for our nation.
______
Mr. Bishop. I thank both of you for your testimony. At
68,000 years of age, that puts us in approximately the average
age of a United States Senator, right?
Mr. Groth. I will not answer that.
Mr. Bishop. That is why you got the job that you have. I
wish to yield my time to Representative Flores for questions.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Burke, thank you
for your testimony today. In listening to your testimony, I
understand that what I have introduced is a unique approach to
recognition according to NPS standards, but given the country's
fiscal situation, and the backlog at the Agency, I believe it
is time to look at doing things other than in a business-as-
usual mode.
Considering the significant financial commitments that have
been raised locally, and the operational commitments that have
been committed, or made locally, has NPS considered looking at
partnership alternatives which would allow for this
recognition, and protection of this site, while at the same
time avoiding use of scarce taxpayer resources? And either one
of you can answer that.
Mr. Gregerson. We have looked at it through the special
resource study, and one of the alternatives that we came up
with was to make it an affiliated area. That was not the chosen
alternative. It was Alternative C that was chosen, to have
direct management and operations over the site.
Mr. Flores. And what were the reasons that--what were the
weaknesses that were perceived to that approach?
Mr. Gregerson. I can't give you that right now, but I can
give you that information.
Mr. Flores. All right. is there any problem looking at an
approach like this in the future? I mean, again, you have a $10
billion backlog at your agency. We are not proposing to further
dilute that or to add to that backlog, or to dilute precious
taxpayer resources.
I am just at a loss to understand what the weaknesses are
of our approach.
Mr. Gregerson. Well, for us to have a viable unit of the
National Park System, we believe that Federal dollars would
have to be expended to protect the site. We can take a look at
Alternative B and reassess the look at a--well, I am drawing a
blank.
Mr. Flores. Well, for instance, what if there were a
management fee arrangement, or something like that? Is that out
of the realm of possibility?
Mr. Gregerson. I have never experienced that, and I would
have to get back to you on that.
Mr. Flores. But never does it mean impossible, right?
Mr. Gregerson. I can't say.
Mr. Flores. It shouldn't. OK. Mr. Groth, thank you for your
testimony today. You walked us through briefly phase one. Would
you like to spend two minutes and 20 seconds to elaborate on
phase one and what you see going forward with the site?
Mr. Groth. Certainly. What we did is that we have a
hundred-acre site, and we actually started with five acres, and
then we were able to obtain some acreage around that carries us
down to the Bosque River.
We have a master plan that would create a really wonderful
recreational area for the community and protect the site. The
site is a relatively small dig area of the hundred acres, and
we have built a protective structure, basically a building,
that covers the dig area so that is protected.
We have access areas to that, and we have picnic areas, and
we have a small visitors' reception area that at some point we
will probably turn back into maintenance as we build a larger
educational facility, and then the associated drives and
parking lots so that the folks can come out and enjoy the site.
Mr. Flores. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield
back, but before I do, I just want to say that this is truly an
asset of national significance, and I wanted to show pictures
today, but my staff advised against it, but it is truly a
unique asset.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Flores, before you yield back, could I ask
to reclaim my time and ask one question of Ms. Burke.
Mr. Flores. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. I understand your testimony is that you would
like to take this over, but only if you can spend Federal funds
on it. You are not going to get more money, and so what are you
proposing to cut within your budget to spent funds on this
program?
Mr. Gregerson. I would have to get back to you on that. We
can give you that information later.
Mr. Bishop. Well, we have plenty of time. All right. Mr.
Grijalva, do you have any questions?
Mr. Grijalva. Yes, for the Park Service, a quick question.
Are there arrangements short of unit designation that
Congressman Flores was talking about that would not give it the
unit designation, but some other management partnership, or
something, but does not have the unit status?
Mr. Gregerson. We have a number of affiliated areas, and
that was the term that I was looking for.
Mr. Grijalva. But the affiliated area designation was
something that was not--that the community did not want. They
wanted a unit status. Am I correct?
Mr. Gregerson. I believe so, yes.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. Thank you. For Mr. Groth, the City
Manager. Do you agree with the study that was conducted by the
National Park Service says that the site deserves national
recognition?
Mr. Groth. Absolutely.
Mr. Grijalva. And if I am not mistaken the city supported
H.R. 1376 in the previous Congress, which included the
possibility of Federal funding for the site. Am I correct on
that as well?
Mr. Groth. Yes, sir.
Mr. Grijalva. The National Park Service submitted testimony
stating that if H.R. 1545 were enacted as currently written
that they would be unable to implement it because they don't
know how to operate the National Park without national funding.
As a City Manager, I am sure that you might be able to
understand the point that I think NPS is attempting to make.
You have a city building, a city park, and a public school in
Waco. The city is supposed to operate them, but is prohibited
from using any funding to do that.
Would it be--and I leave that because wouldn't that be in
your position, wouldn't that be difficult to try to carry out
that public responsibility if the city council issued a
prohibition that you are not allowed to use any of the public
funds associated with the city?
Mr. Groth. That would be difficult, but I believe that if I
had an associated agency that we should be able to work that
out. My feeling is that we are not asking for any funds for
capital, and we are not asking for any operation and
maintenance funds at the site.
Somehow we need to work with the National Parks, and I am
sure that there is a way that we can work out an agreement, a
management agreement with them. Obviously it is going to take
some staff time, and that is my testimony.
I want the National Park to be authorized to do whatever
they need to do to make this happen. I am not sure what all
that means, but we are not asking for any expenditures of funds
at the site.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. So given the choice, Mr. City Manager,
between having the National Park Service as a partner or not,
you would choose to have them involved?
Mr. Groth. Yes, sir.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Groth. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. When the National Park Service did its study
did it estimate how much money it would take to operate as a
typical unit of the National Park Service at this type of site
with this size? Do we have any rough guess as to how much money
the National Park Service would want?
Mr. Gregerson. Just for annual staffing for four full-time
staff, it would be approximately $345,000 a year.
Mr. Duncan. And, Mr. Groth, how much is the city planning
to spend, or this group that is operating the site right now?
Mr. Groth. Yes, sir, we have been operating for a year, and
we spend about $300,000, which we are actually subsidizing the
revenue not coming in to cover those expenses, and so we
subsidize about $170,000 a year.
Mr. Duncan. So the city is subsidizing that operation at
this point?
Mr. Groth. Yes, sir.
Mr. Duncan. And when you talk about that it is 109 acres
right now, but when you talk about some kind of a park there,
you are talking about on the 109 acres, or does the city or the
Park Service feel that this site needs to be expanded beyond
the 109 acres?
Mr. Groth. I can't address what the Park Service thinks. I
can from my standpoint. We were very intent on acquiring buffer
area around the dig site to protect it, and we feel like we
have sufficient land.
Mr. Duncan. You feel like you have sufficient land. You
want to acquire a buffer area, but you feel like you have
sufficient land at this point?
Mr. Groth. Yes, sir.
Mr. Duncan. So you don't have to acquire anymore?
Mr. Groth. That is correct.
Mr. Duncan. What does the Park Service say about that? The
Park Service always wants more land.
Mr. Gregerson. No, actually we agree with that assessment.
Mr. Duncan. You do? OK. You know, too many local
governments--it sounds so great for a politician to create a
park, but we have created so many parks at the local, and
State, and Federal levels now that most of them are barely
used.
I mean, you have a few, like the Great Smoky Mountains in
my district, that has over nine million visitors a year, and
there are a few others that get millions of visitors, but you
have a lot of these local and State parks now that are just
deserted almost, and we keep taking land off the tax rolls at
the same time that the teachers and the police, and others, are
coming to us wanting more money.
And so at some point, I think that we have to wake up and
realize that we need to take better care of the parks that we
have, and stop taking all this land off the tax rolls. And it
seems to me that that is something that somebody in the local
government should be especially concerned about. But at any
rate that is all the questions that I have, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Flores.
Mr. Flores. Well, I wanted to dig in a little deeper on the
question that we asked a minute ago that Mr. Duncan started.
The Park Service, and just to verify this number, you said that
it was going to take $345,000 a year to operate the park to NPS
standards; is that correct?
Mr. Gregerson. Yes, that was the estimate that we had.
Mr. Flores. And, Mr. Groth, you are saying that today the
park is costing about $300,000. So if we took it to NPS
standards, we are talking about $345,000. Is it your view that
the community and the city would continue to and be able to
provide the funding for the park at that level to meet the NPS
standards?
Mr. Groth. Yes, sir.
Mr. Flores. OK. And again what was the attendance number
that you quote a minute ago, 40,000 persons last year?
Mr. Groth. Yes, sir.
Mr. Flores. OK. And that was virtually with zero
advertising, and zero budget for marketing, and things like
that; is that correct?
Mr. Groth. Correct.
Mr. Flores. OK. Thank you. No further questions.
Mr. Bishop. With that, unless there are any other
questions, we appreciate Representative Flores for bringing the
bill, and we appreciate our two witnesses. You are dismissed.
Thank you.
We will move on to the next bill, which is 1258, Box Elder
Utah Land Conveyance Act. Ms. Wagner, we would ask you to come
again to present the Forest Service testimony. At issue is part
of a larger gift that was given by Hans Rasmussen to the Forest
Service in the 1940s for a dollar. There are no forest
activities occurring on this land, which is primarily
grassland, surrounded on three sides, and each parcel
surrounded on three sides by either private property or city
land.
The City of Mantua would like to use this for expansion in
their cemetery, construction of a town hall, and needed fire
station. The current cemetery is at capacity, which is a
problem, and similar versions of this bill, as was mentioned by
the Ranking Member, have passed before, but have yet to pass
The Senate.
Ms. Wagner, if you have testimony, you are recognized right
now.
STATEMENT OF MARY WAGNER, ASSOCIATE CHIEF, U.S. FOREST SERVICE,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Ms. Wagner. Chairman Bishop, thank you, and Ranking Member
Grijalva, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to share the Department's view on H.R. 1258.
It would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey
without consideration to the Town of Mantua, Utah, all right,
title, and interest of the United States in approximately 31.5
acres of National Forest System land in Box Elder County, Utah.
While we believe the Forest Service could meet the
objectives of the bill administratively through the Town Site
Act, the Department does not object to the conveyance of this
National Forest System land.
We do note that these parcels have not officially been
described, and a Federal survey would be required in advance of
the conveyance. We would appreciate the opportunity to work
with the bill's sponsors, the Committee, and the Town of Mantua
to address concerns with H.R. 1258, such as the definition of
public purpose, the reversionary language, ensuring the town's
agreement to the conveyance, and provisions for the
administrative costs of the conveyance.
This concludes my testimony, and I am happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wagner follows:]
Statement of Mary Wagner, Associate Chief, U.S. Forest Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 1258: To Provide for the conveyance
of parcels of land to Mantua, Box Elder County, Utah
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity today to present the
Department's view on H.R. 1258, legislation to provide for the
conveyance of parcels of land to Mantua, Box Elder, Utah.
H.R. 1258 would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey,
without consideration, to the Town of Mantua, Utah, all right, title
and interest of the United States in approximately 31.5 acres of
National Forest System (NFS) land in Box Elder County, Utah. This land
is currently part of the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest. The 31.5
acres in question comprise three parcels identified in the bill as
parcels A, B, and C on the map entitled `Box Elder Utah Land Conveyance
Act' and dated July 14, 2008. The parcels are encumbered with several
outstanding rights in Brigham City, including three pipelines, a right
to construct a pipeline, and use of four springs.
The Department does not object to conveyance of this NFS land, but
notes that these parcels have not been officially described; a federal
survey would be required in advance of conveyance. Although the bill
does require the Town to cover the Federal land survey costs associated
with the conveyance, it does not clearly state who would be responsible
for bearing other administrative costs.
We believe that the Forest Service could meet the objectives of the
bill administratively through either the Townsite Act of July 31, 1958
(16 U.S.C. 478a) or the Weeks Act of March 1, 1911 (16 U.S.C. 516) as
supplemented by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of
October 21, 1976 (P.L. 94-579, 90 Stat. 2743; 43 U.S.C. 1716; as
amended). The Townsite Act authorizes communities to acquire up to 640
acres of NFS land in order to serve community objectives and requires
payment to the United States of the market value of the federal land.
The Weeks Act authorizes the exchange of NFS land for non-Federal land
on the basis of equal value.
It is longstanding policy that the United States receive market
value for the sale, exchange or use of NFS land. This policy is well
established in law, including the Independent Offices Appropriation Act
(31 U.S.C. 9701), section 102(9) of FLPMA, as well as numerous land
exchange authorities. The parcels were acquired by donation from Box
Elder County in 1941. They have value to the United States for their
potential to be used to facilitate future land exchanges.
Mr. Chairman, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the
congressional consideration of H.R. 1258, the Forest Service is
committed to working with the bill sponsors, the Town of Mantua, and
the Committee, in hopes of assisting the Town. We would appreciate the
opportunity to work with the Committee to address concerns with H.R.
1258, such as the definition of public purpose and the reversionary
language.
Also, to avoid constitutional concerns, the Department of Justice
recommends that the bill be revised to make absolutely clear that the
town would have to agree to the proposed conveyance, which is what we
understand Congress intends. This change might be accomplished by
adding ``subject to the Town's agreement'' after ``the Secretary shall
convey,'' in section 2(a) of the bill.
This concludes my statement and I would be happy to answer any
questions you might have.
______
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Grijalva, do you have any questions?
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Chairman, in the 10 years that I have
been on this Subcommittee, this is the finest piece of
legislation that I have ever laid eyes on. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. I thank the Ranking Member's brilliant
deduction. All right. Thank you for this particular bill. I am
going to do an audible here. Mr. Denham would like to be here
for his bill, but he is in another committee.
Mr. Gosar is here for his bill, and if it is all right with
you, Mr. Carlisle, I would like to switch those around, and so
we will deal first with H.R. 1904, the Southeast Arizona Land
Exchange and Conservation Act of 2011.
Our witnesses are Ms. Wagner again, and if I dismissed you
too soon, I would like to come back here for the Forest
Service; and Ms. Burke from the Bureau of Land Management. We
have with us Michael Hing--and I hope that I pronounced that
correctly--the Mayor of the City of Superior, Arizona; Bryan
Martyn, the Vice Chairman of the Pinal County Board of
Supervisors; Mr. Harrison Talgo, the former Chairman of the San
Carlos Apache Tribe; Mr. John Cherry, the Vice President of
Resolution Copper Mining; Shan Lewis the President of the
Intertribal Council of Arizona, and the Vice Chairman of the
Fort Mojave Indian Tribe; and Mr. Roger Featherstone, the
Director of the Arizona Mining Reform Coalition.
So we will give you a second to coordinate yourselves at
the table, if we can get you all in there. All right. I think
if we are all set there, then Ms. Gosar, if you would like to
make your statement from the dais, and participate also in the
hearing.
Are you a Member of the Subcommittee? Well, we don't care.
We already gave unanimous consent that any Member could be
here. And I am happy that you are going to be there, because
there is no way that you are going to fit down there anyway.
So what I would like to do is to allow you to make your
statement, and then we will just go down the row, starting once
again with Ms. Wagner, for those statements as well.
Representative Gosar.
STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Chairman Bishop, and Chairman
Hastings, for recognizing the importance of this legislation,
and to my District, the State of Arizona, and our country, by
scheduling this legislative hearing.
The need for this land exchange and ensuing copper mine was
one of the very first projects brought to my attention by the
people of my district. Many of those folks, excited for the
economic development and sustainable growth that this project
will bring, wanted this legislation introduced immediately with
the start up of Congress.
However, I felt that it was my duty as a new Representative
of Arizona's First Congressional District to engage in
interested stakeholders. I would like to thank my constituents,
including Terry Rambler, the Chairman of the San Carlos Apache
Tribe, who is here today, for the many honest and candid
conversations about this proposal.
I think and I believe Chairman Rambler does as well that it
is important to maintain an honest and respectful debate about
the issues facing our State. I remain committed to working with
the involved parties as we move forward through this process.
Times are tough in my district. The unemployment rates in
Pinal and Healy County sit above 10 percent. This legislation
is overwhelmingly supported in Arizona because it will provide
jobs and put Arizona back on the road to economic recovery.
The project will support over 3,700 jobs and provide for
220 million in annual wages. A total economic impact on the
State of Arizona is estimated to be over $61 billion, nearly $1
billion per year, and another $20 billion in Federal, State,
and county, and local tax revenue.
This legislation will also significantly contribute to our
mineral and energy independence. Today, we import over 30
percent of our copper, compared to seven percent in 1993. This
project will produce up to 25 percent of the current United
States demand.
The demand for copper is skyrocketing. A single three
megawatt wind turbine requires 4.7 tons of copper. Renewable
energy production from solar, wind, geothermal, and other
technologies depend heavily on copper to transmit the energy
that they generate.
Hybrid vehicles require double the amount of copper as gas-
fueled automobiles. The Department of Defense indicates that
copper ranks second, only behind aluminum, in defense
industrial applications.
The United States must use domestic resources to meet this
growing demand, and this legislation is a major step in the
right direction. This legislation is not just a jobs bill. It
is a conservation bill. The land that the Federal Government
acquires in the exchange is a highly coveted recreation and
conservation areas.
It protects one of the last few remaining undammed rivers
in the State of Arizona, the San Pedro River. The 7-B property
contains nearly seven miles of the lower San Pedro River, as
well as over 800 acres of adjacent and intact Mesquite moss,
representing what is probably the largest old growth mesquite
forest remaining in Arizona.
Dripping Springs is a superb hiking and climbing location,
and nearly a hundred acres of private land adjacent to the
culturally important Apache Leap is being conveyed to the
Federal Government.
I have drafted this legislation to ensure that this is a
fair value exchange. Arizona is blessed with natural resources,
and we only get one opportunity to tap them. It is very
important to me to ensure that the taxpayers are not
shorthanded.
If Resolution Copper produces minerals that exceed the
productions assumed in the initial appraisal, the company is
required to make a cash payment to the Federal Government. I
also would like to address the inaccurate assertions that my
legislation circumvents environmental law.
Sections 4(i) and 4(j) address explicitly and implicitly
compliance with the Federal environmental laws, and regulations
pertaining to conveyances of Federal land, and approval of mine
plan operations.
The partners must comply with other applicable Federal laws
and regulations prior to the conveyances of the land. Thus, the
exchange will not go forward until major environmental
requirements under the National Historic Preservation Act,
Endangered Species Act, Executive Orders pertaining to wetlands
and flood planes, and hazardous materials surveys are met.
Prior to the completion of the exchange, title to the non-
Federal lands must be determined to be acceptable to the
Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior, and appraisals of all
lands must be completed in accordance with Federal appraisal
regulations, and be approved by Federal Agencies.
With regards to mine plan of operations, H.R., 1904 is
clear that this plan can only be approved following preparation
of a full environmental impact statement that is in accordance
with NEPA and all other applicable Federal laws and
regulations.
Additional environmental compliance regulations will also
have to be addressed at the State and local levels for this
mine to be operated. H.R. 1904 may be new legislation, but this
initiative is not.
Over the past six years this land exchange has been subject
to intensive review, public consideration, and modification.
Today marks the fifth Congressional hearing, the second in the
U.S. House of Representatives, held on this topic.
It is time that Congress approves the legislation and puts
this vital economic project into motion. I am confident that
H.R. 1904 can serve as a fine example of utilizing the West's
natural resources in a way that engages all stakeholders, while
promotion economic development in an environmentally
responsible way.
I firmly believe that this legislation will lead to a
better future for my constituents and this country. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Gosar follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Paul A. Gosar, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Arizona, on H.R. 1904
I would like to thank Chairman Hastings and Chairman Bishop for
recognizing the importance of this legislation to my district, the
state of Arizona, and our country by scheduling this legislative
hearing.
The need for this land exchange and ensuing copper mine was one of
the very first projects brought to my attention by the people of my
district. Many of those folks, excited for the economic development and
sustainable growth that this project will bring, wanted this
legislation introduced immediately with the start of the new Congress.
However, I felt it was my duty as the new Representative of Arizona's
First Congressional District, to engage with interested stakeholders.
I would like to thank all my constituents, including Terry Rambler,
the Chairman of the San Carlos Apache Tribe, who is here today, for the
many honest and candid conversations about this proposal. I think, and
I believe Chairman Rambler does as well, that it is important to
maintain an honest and respectful debate about the issues facing our
state. I remain committed to working with the involved parties as they
move through this process.
Times are tough in my district. The unemployment rates in Pinal and
Gila County sit above 10 percent. This legislation is overwhelmingly
supported in Arizona because it will provide jobs and put Arizona back
on the road to economic recovery. The project will support over 3,700
jobs providing for $220 million in annual wages. The total economic
impact of the project on the State of Arizona is estimated to be over
$61.4 billion, near $1 billion per year and another $20 billion in
federal, state, county and local tax revenue.
This legislation will also significantly contribute to our mineral
and energy independence. Today we import 30 percent of our copper
compared to 7 percent in 1993. This project will produce up to 25% of
the current U.S. demand. The demand for copper is skyrocketing. A
single 3 megawatt wind turbine requires 4.7 tons of copper. Renewable
energy production from solar, wind, geothermal and other technologies
depend heavily on copper to transmit the energy they generate. Hybrid
vehicles require double the amount of copper as gas-fueled automobiles.
The Department of Defense indicates that copper ranks second- behind
aluminum- in defense industrial applications. The U.S. must use
domestic resources to meet this growing demand and this legislation is
a major step in the right direction.
This legislation is not only a jobs bill, it's a conservation bill.
The land the federal government acquires in the exchange is highly-
coveted recreational and conservation areas. It protects one of the
last few remaining undammed rivers in the State of Arizona, the San
Pedro River. The ``Seven B'' property contains nearly 7 miles of the
lower San Pedro River, as well as over 800 acres of ancient intact
mesquite bosque representing what is probably the largest old-growth
mesquite forest remaining in Arizona. Dripping Springs is a superb
hiking and climbing location. And nearly 100 acres of private land
adjacent to the culturally important Apache Leap is being conveyed to
the federal government.
I have drafted this legislation to ensure this is a fair value
exchange. Arizona is blessed with natural resources and we only get one
opportunity to tap them. It is very important to me to ensure the
taxpayer is not shortchanged. If Resolution Copper produces minerals
that exceed the production assumed in the initial appraisal, the
company is required to make a cash payment to the federal government.
Those funds will be used for the management and maintenance of current
public lands. Considering Arizona is over 60% publicly owned, this
could have major benefits for our state.
I'd like to address the inaccurate assertion that my legislation
circumvents environmental law. Sections 4(i) and 4(j) address
explicitly and implicitly compliance with Federal environmental laws
and regulations pertaining to conveyances of Federal land and approval
of mine plan of operations. The partners must comply with other
applicable Federal laws and regulations prior to the conveyance of
lands. Thus, the exchange will not go forward until major environmental
requirements under the National Historic Preservation Act, Endangered
Species Act, Executive Orders pertaining to wetlands and floodplains,
and Hazardous Materials Surveys are met.
Prior to completion of the exchange, title to the non-Federal lands
must be determined to be acceptable to the Secretaries of Agriculture
and Interior, and appraisals of all lands must be completed in
accordance with Federal appraisal regulations and be approved by the
Federal agencies. With regards to the Mine Plan of Operations, H.R.
1904 is clear that this plan can only be approved following preparation
of a full EIS that is in accordance with NEPA and all other applicable
Federal laws and regulations. Additional environmental compliance
requirements will also have to be addressed at the state and local
levels in order for this mine to be developed. This legislation
promotes economic development in an environmentally responsible way.
H.R. 1904 may be new legislation, but this initiative is not. Over
the past six years, this land exchange has been subject to intensive
review, public consideration and modification. Today marks the fifth
Congressional hearing, the 2nd in the U.S. House of Representatives,
held on this topic. It is time Congress approves the legislation and
puts this vital economic project in motion.
I am confident H.R. 1904 can serve as a fine example of utilizing
the West's natural resources in a way that engages all stakeholders
while promoting economic development in an environmentally responsible
way. I firmly believe this legislation will lead to a better future for
my constituents and this country.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Gosar. Once again, I remind all
the witnesses that your written testimony will be included in
the record. Your oral testimony please is confined to the five
minutes that you have there on the clock. Ms. Wagner, we will
start with you again.
STATEMENT OF MARY WAGNER, ASSOCIATE CHIEF, U.S. FOREST SERVICE,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Ms. Wagner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to share the
Department's view on H.R. 1904, which would direct the
Secretary of Agriculture to convey Federal land for use as an
underground copper mine in exchange for environmentally
sensitive, non-Federal land in Arizona.
We defer to the Department of the Interior on provisions
relating to lands to be managed by the Bureau of Land
Management. The Federal land to be conveyed, known as Oak Flat,
contains a potentially sizable core copper ore body, and
adjoins an existing copper mine on private land owned by
Resolution Copper.
The bill would add five parcels of land with important
resource values and riparian habitat, totaling almost 1200
acres to the National Forest System. Additionally, as a
condition of the land exchange, Resolution Copper would
surrender its rights to commercially extract minerals under
Apache Leap.
After the exchange is consummated the bill would require
the Forest Service to prepare an environmental analysis for
ancillary activities related to the mining development, such as
rights-of-way for electric lines, pipelines, or roads, before
issuing authorizations for such activities, which would be
consistent with existing requirements under NEPA.
While the Department understands and appreciates the
significant potential economic benefits and jobs that would be
potentially created, and the value of lands to be acquired by
the American public, the Department cannot support the bill as
written.
However, the Department is keenly interested and willing to
work with the sponsor and the Committee to address our
concerns. The principal concern is the provision in the bill
which would require the Agency to prepare an environmental
analysis after the land exchange is completed.
The bill should be amended to require the preparation of an
environmental analysis before the land exchange is completed.
The purpose of preparing an environmental analysis would be to
analyze the effects of the transfer of Federal land to
Resolution Cooper.
Any activities that are reasonably foreseeable to occur on
the transferred land, including mineral development, and the
acquisition of the non-Federal land resulting from the
exchange, the Agency would use the environmental analysis to
make a decision on whether to proceed with the exchange and
under what conditions, namely whether and how to require
mitigation on the identified impacts.
The Department has a responsibility to consider tribal
government concerns, and these can only be adequately addressed
if the environmental analysis is the first step. There is no
doubt that the lands that would be acquired and managed by the
Forest Service under H.R. 1904 would have important resource
values that should be protected.
And it is also clear that the economic benefits from the
production of copper could be significant in creating family
waged jobs in tough economic times.
Therefore, it is important to fully understand the scope of
the project before proceeding, and to address potentially
significant environmental concerns, and sites of high
importance to local tribes. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my
statement, and I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wagner follows:]
Statement of Mary Wagner, Associate Chief, U.S. Forest Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 1904
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to provide the Department of
Agriculture's views on H.R. 1904, the ``Southeast Arizona Land Exchange
and Conservation Act of 2011. I am Mary Wagner, Associate Chief of the
U.S. Forest Service. H.R. 1904 would direct the Secretary of
Agriculture to convey federal land for use as an underground copper
mine in exchange for environmentally sensitive non-federal land in
Arizona. We defer to the Department of the Interior on provisions
relating to lands to be managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
H.R. 1904 would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey to
Resolution Copper Mining, LLC (Resolution Copper), a 2,422-acre parcel
of land on the Tonto National Forest. The federal land to be conveyed,
known as Oak Flat, contains a potentially sizeable copper ore body and
adjoins an existing copper mine on private land owned by Resolution
Copper. In exchange, Resolution Copper would convey five parcels of
land to the Forest Service and three parcels of land to BLM. The total
non-federal acreage that would be conveyed by Resolution Copper is
5,344 acres, all of which are in Arizona.
The Bill calls for an equal value exchange in Section 4e. If the
value of the federal land (including the ore body) to be conveyed
exceeds the value of the parcels to be acquired, the Bill would allow
for a cash equalization payment by Resolution Copper in excess of
twenty-five percent. Under current law, cash equalization payments may
not exceed twenty-five percent. A cash equalization payment resulting
from the exchange would be deposited in the Sisk Act account to be
used, upon appropriation by Congress, for acquisition of land for
addition to the National Forest System.
The appraised value of the federal land to be conveyed to
Resolution Copper would include the value of the ore body. The Bill, in
Section 6b would require Resolution Copper to make value adjustment
payments if, as the mine is developed, annual production of the mine
exceeds expectations documented in the appraisal. Those funds would be
deposited in a special account in the Treasury to be used, upon
appropriation by Congress, for maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation
projects. The Department's position is that funds received from land
conveyance should be used for land acquisition.
The Bill also would provide for the sale of a 30-acre parcel of
land currently being used as a cemetery, a reversionary interest and
reserved mineral rights in a 265-acre parcel, and 250 acres near the
Superior Airport at market value to the Town of Superior. Sale proceeds
would be deposited in the Sisk Act account to be used, upon
appropriation by Congress, for acquisition of land to the National
Forest System.
H.R. 1904 would require Resolution Copper to pay all costs
associated with the exchange. The Bill would provide that it is the
intent of Congress that the exchange be completed not later than one
year after the date of enactment.
At the request of Resolution Copper, the Bill would require the
Secretary, within 30 days of such request, to issue a special use
permit to Resolution Cooper to carry out mineral exploration activities
under the Oak Flat Withdrawal Area, from existing drill pads located
outside the area, if such activities would not disturb the surface of
the Area. At the request of Resolution Copper, within 90 days, the Bill
would require the Secretary to issue a special use permit to Resolution
Copper to carry out mineral exploration activities under the Oak Flat
Withdrawal Area (but not within the Oak Flat Campground), if the
activities are conducted from a single exploratory drill pad which is
located to reasonably minimize visual and noise impacts to the
Campground.
H.R. 1904 would require the Secretary of Agriculture to complete an
environmental review document after the exchange, and after the above-
noted activities were permitted to take place, but before Resolution
Copper's commencement of commercial mineral production on the land it
would acquire in the exchange. Specifically, once the land exchange is
consummated, and these lands are in the private ownership of Resolution
Copper, Resolution Copper is authorized to submit a mine plan of
operation to the Secretary. Thereafter, the Secretary must complete an
environmental review document within three years that is limited to
Section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).
The environmental document would be used as the basis for any federal
action or authorization related to the proposed mine and mine plan of
operations of Resolution Copper, including the construction of
associated power, water, transportation, processing, tailings, waste
dump, and other ancillary facilities. After the exchange, Resolution
Copper may need to use the adjoining National Forest System land for
ancillary activities related to the mining development, such as rights-
of-way for electric lines, pipelines, or roads. As we understand the
Bill, it would require the Forest Service to prepare an environmental
analysis before issuing authorizations for such activities, which would
be consistent with existing requirements under NEPA.
The Bill would add five parcels of land totaling almost 1,200 acres
to the National Forest System. Most of these parcels include riparian
areas which are somewhat rare in Arizona. One of the parcels that would
be acquired adjoins the Apache Leap area on the Tonto National Forest.
Additionally, as a condition of the land exchange, Resolution Copper
would surrender its rights to commercially extract minerals under
Apache Leap.
While the Department understands and appreciates the potential
economic benefits and the value of the lands to be acquired by the
American public, the Department cannot support the Bill as written but
is looking forward to working with the Sponsor and the Committee. The
principal concern is that the Bill would require the agency to prepare
an environmental review document under NEPA after the land exchange is
completed. Also of concern is the fact the Bill would immediately
authorize mining exploration activities under an area that is sacred to
the San Carlos Apache Tribe without a review or study.
NEPA is a forward looking statute setting out procedural
obligations to be carried out before a federal action is taken. It
requires that, before taking a discretionary decision, the federal
agency consider the environmental impacts of a proposed major federal
action and alternatives of such action. It is this Administration's
policy that NEPA be fully complied with to address all federal actions
and decisions, including those necessary to implement congressional
direction.
The purpose of the requirement in the bill that the agency prepare
a limited NEPA review after the exchange, when the land is in private
ownership, is unclear because the bill provides the agency limited
discretion to exercise. An environmental review document after the
exchange would preclude the U.S. Forest Service from developing a
reasonable range of alternatives to the proposal and providing the
public with opportunities to comment on the proposal. In addition, the
U.S. Forest Service does not have an understanding of the impacts the
proposed mine will have on local or regional water supplies, water
quality, or possible dewatering of the area. No studies or assessments
of the water supplies have been conducted. That is information which
could be obtained by the Forest Service with NEPA analysis before the
exchange. A NEPA analysis after the exchange would not allow the Forest
Service to recommend alternatives since the exchanged parcel would
already be in private ownership.
The Bill should be amended to require the preparation of an
environmental impact statement before the land exchange is completed.
The purpose of preparing an environmental analysis before consummating
the land exchange would be to analyze the effects of the transfer of
the federal land to Resolution Copper, any activities that are
reasonably foreseeable to occur on the transferred land (including
mineral development), and the acquisition of the non-federal land
resulting from the exchange. The agency would use the environmental
analysis to make a decision on whether and how to proceed with the
exchange and what mitigation conditions would be required to mitigate
the identified impacts.
The legislation states that it is Congressional intent that the
exchange be completed within one year. Based on our experience with
complex land exchanges, this is an insufficient amount of time to
complete the exchange. Given the requirement of mineral reports,
appraisals, title documents, environmental analysis and government to
government consultation with local Tribes, a two to three-year
timeframe is much more realistic. Doing a pre-exchange review would
increase the time requirement as well.
The agency also understands that a number of federally recognized
Indian tribes and regional and national tribal organizations are
concerned that the Bill circumvents various laws, policies, and
Executive order that directs the Federal land managing agencies to
engage in formal consultation with the interested Indian tribes. Indian
tribes have also raised important concerns that the Bill is contrary to
various policies and Executive Orders that Federal land managing
agencies to protect and preserve sites that are sacred to Native
Americans. The Forest Service understands that land is very sacred to
the tribe and holds significant traditional and historic value. Because
of these expressed concerns and because this specific site has been the
focus of historic Government protection it is important that this Bill
provide for the process of formal tribal consultation to ensure both
tribal participation and protection of this site.
The Bill would require the Secretary to prepare a management plan
for Apache Leap. Further, the federal lands to be exchanged (Oak Flat)
hold significant cultural values to Indian Tribes. Although the Bill
would require government-to-government consultation, any consultation
would not be considered meaningful under Executive Order 13175,
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'',
because the Secretary's discretion regarding the land exchange is
limited. The focus of the consultations would likely be the management
of those areas over which the agency would have discretion, namely, the
federal land adjacent to the mine and Apache Leap.
For example, the Secretary would not have discretion over the
conveyance or on-site management of the Oak Flat site, which under the
legislation would be conveyed to Resolution Copper. The San Carlos
Apache Tribe considers the Oak Flat area to be a sacred site. They have
expressed concerns that block cave mining would cause subsidence would
impact the fundamental religious nature of the site. They have also
expressed concerns regarding potential impacts on water quality. They
have detailed in correspondence the importance of traditional acorn
gathering and religious ceremonies which still occur on this site. The
Department has a responsibility to consider the Tribes' concerns and
these can only be adequately addressed if a pre-exchange environmental
analysis is the first step.
There is no doubt that the lands that would be acquired and managed
by the U.S. Forest Service under H.R. 1904 have important resource
values that should be protected. It is also clear that the economic
benefits from the production of copper could be significant in creating
family wage jobs in tough economic times. However, it is important to
more fully understand the scope of the project before proceeding and
address potentially significant environmental concerns and sites of
high importance to local Tribes. In addition to the concerns expressed
in testimony, the Department would like to work with the Committee on a
number of significant technical concerns.
This concludes my statement and I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
______
Mr. Bishop. Ms. Burke.
STATEMENT OF MARCILYNN BURKE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Burke. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on
behalf of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 1904, the
Southeast Arizona Land Exchange Conservation Act. H.R. 1904
provides for the exchange of a 2,422-acre parcel of Forest
Service-managed land to a private company in exchange for a
number of parcels within the State of Arizona for management by
the Forest Service and by the Bureau of Land Management.
The Department of the Interior defers to the Forest Service
on issues directly related to Forest Service lands, and
associated valuation. However, the Department cannot support
this bill as written.
The exchange proposed in H.R. 1904 is complex, and the
Department has several concerns, including the timing of the
consultation with interested Indian tribes. The timing of the
exchange, appraisal provisions, and value adjustment
provisions.
Many of the lands to be exchanged in the bill hold
significant cultural value to Indian tribes. Concerns have been
raised by these tribes that the bill is contrary to various
laws and policies, and Executive Orders, that direct Federal
land managers to engage in formal consultation with interested
Indian tribes, and to protect and preserve sites that are
sacred to Native Americans.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify here today,
and I am happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Burke follows:]
Statement of Marcilynn Burke, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land
Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 1904
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 1904, the
Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act. The legislation
provides for the exchange of a 2,422-acre parcel of U.S. Forest
Service-managed land to a private company in exchange for a number of
parcels within the State of Arizona for management by the U.S. Forest
Service (FS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Three of the
private parcels are identified for transfer to the Secretary of the
Interior. In general, the Department of the Interior (DOI) defers to
the FS on the issues directly related to FS-managed lands and
associated valuation issues. We believe that the intent of the
legislation is to facilitate an exchange of land with Resolution Copper
Mining, LLC. Resolution Copper has indicated its intention to develop a
copper mine near Superior, Arizona, and wishes to acquire the 2,422-
acre Forest Service parcel overlying the copper deposit as well as the
Federal subsurface rights.
Conveyance of Parcels to the Bureau of Land Management
We note that while the bill states that three parcels are to be
conveyed to the Secretary of the Interior, it is our understanding that
the sponsor intends for the parcels to be placed under the
administrative jurisdiction of the BLM. The parcels identified are
located in Gila, Pinal, and Santa Cruz Counties and include:
3,050 acres along the Lower San Pedro River near
Mammoth, Arizona;
160 acres within the Dripping Springs area near
Kearny, Arizona; and
the 940-acre Appleton Ranch parcel adjacent to the
Las Cienegas National Conservation Area near Sonoita, Arizona.
The legislation references maps for these three parcels dated March
2011. The sponsor's office informs us that these maps do not exist and
that the sponsor intends to use the boundaries delineated on the maps
dated June 3, 2009, which the BLM previously prepared for Senator Kyl
of Arizona. The BLM would be happy to prepare new maps for H.R. 1904 if
requested.
The lower San Pedro parcel is east of the town of Mammoth, Arizona,
and straddles the San Pedro River. The acquisition of these lands would
enhance key migratory bird habitat along the San Pedro River. H.R. 1904
provides for the lower San Pedro parcel to be managed as part of the
BLM's existing San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area (NCA)
designated by Public Law 100-696. The lower San Pedro parcel lies along
the same riparian corridor as the San Pedro NCA, but it is at least 60
miles downstream (north) of the existing NCA and has substantially
different resource issues and needs. If this parcel is conveyed to the
Secretary the Interior and incorporated into the NCA, the Department
recommends that the existing 80 acres of adjacent BLM-managed public
land likewise be included within the NCA to facilitate the efficient
and effective management of this important riparian corridor.
The legislation also proposes to transfer 160 acres in the Dripping
Springs area near Kearny, Arizona to the Secretary of the Interior.
This private parcel is an inholding within a larger block of public
lands and has important resource values, including sensitive Desert
Tortoise habitat.
Finally, the bill provides for the transfer of the 940-acre
Appleton Ranch parcel to the Secretary of the Interior. This parcel is
located on the southern end of the BLM's Las Cienegas NCA. These lands
lie within the ``Sonoita Valley Acquisition Planning District''
established by Public Law 106-538, which designated the Las Cienegas
NCA. That law directs the Department to acquire lands from willing
sellers within the planning district for inclusion in the NCA to
further protect the important resource values for which the NCA was
designated. These lands are part of a significant wildlife corridor.
The acquisition of these lands advances important conservation goals
associated with this unique and special natural resource and is
consistent with the President's America's Great Outdoors initiative.
General Concerns
The Department has several concerns with the bill and cannot
support the bill as written. Among these concerns are the timing of
consultations with interested Indian Tribes, the timing of the
exchange, appraisal provisions, and value adjustment provisions.
Concerns have been raised by Indian Tribes that the bill is
contrary to various laws and policies and Executive Orders that direct
Federal land managing agencies to engage in formal consultation with
interested Indian Tribes, and to protect and preserve sites that are
sacred to Native Americans.
Many of the lands to be exchanged in the bill hold significant
cultural value to Indian Tribes. In particular, the Apache Leap area,
the Oak Flat Campground, and Devil's Canyon are culturally significant
to the San Carlos Apache Tribe and the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation.
There are also other neighboring Tribes with cultural interests in the
area. The Department recommends the Secretary of the Interior be
included, along with the Secretary of Agriculture in the consultation
required in the legislation when it relates to Indian tribes. However,
the Department is concerned that any consultations under this H.R. 1904
would not be meaningful under Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Government'', because the Secretary's
discretion regarding the land exchange is limited.
Section 4(i) of the legislation expresses the intent of Congress
that the exchange be completed within one year. Based on our experience
with exchanges, we believe this amount of time is insufficient to
complete and review the necessary environmental documents, mineral
report, appraisals, as well as to conduct the final verification and
prepare title documents. We are also concerned that one year may not be
sufficient to complete analysis of any historic and sacred sites in the
exchange area as required by the Native American Graves Protection Act
and the National Historic Preservation Act.
Preparation of a mineral report is a crucial first step toward an
appraisal of the Federal parcel because the report provides important
information about the Federal mineral deposit. The bill does not
address access to confidential exploration and development data and
company analyses on the mineral deposits underlying the Federal land in
order to ensure a timely and accurate appraisal. Such information is
essential for the mineral report, particularly in the context of this
exchange, because of the size of the proposed mining operation and the
proposed mining technique.
Section 6 of H.R. 1904 provides for an annual value adjustment
payment to the United States if the cumulative production of locatable
minerals exceeds the projected production used in the appraisal
required by section 4(d)(3). This provision recognizes that an accurate
projection of future production as part of the appraisal process will
be difficult to develop, and provides a mechanism for additional
payments to the United States if the actual production exceeds the
projected production. The Department generally defers to the FS on the
specific provisions of section 6 of the bill. However, we note that
this section creates a new fund in the U.S. Treasury for the deposit of
these value adjustment payments. The Department recommends that these
funds be dedicated to Federal land acquisition in the same manner as
the initial land equalization payments provided for in section
4(e)(2)(C) of the bill. Because these funds are to compensate for a
possible initial inadvertent under-appraisal of land values, it is
appropriate that the value when captured be used in the same manner as
if it had been included in the initial appraisal.
Finally, there are a number of issues of a more technical nature
that we would welcome the opportunity to discuss as this legislation
moves forward.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. The exchange proposed in
H.R. 1904 is complex. The Departments of Agriculture and of the
Interior seek to assure that the Federal government's interest is
appropriately protected in any final legislation.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mayor Hing.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL HING, MAYOR,
CITY OF SUPERIOR, ARIZONA
Mr. Hing. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Michael Hing. I am the Mayor of
Superior, Arizona, a small town in Pinal County, about 65 miles
southeast of Phoenix.
Our town strongly supports H.R. 1904. I represent a town
that has gone through extreme rough economic times, with
unemployment even higher than 15 percent. However, we are at
the verge of a major step forward. I am speaking about the
economic development that will occur if Resolution Copper is
able to reopen and deepen the almost century-old Magna Mine.
This land exchange represents an unprecedented opportunity
to improve the long-term economic vitality of my community. Mr.
Chairman, there are several significant factors that make our
town ideally suited to host and service a reopened mine at Oak
Flat.
If I can draw your attention to the photo on the screen.
The photo clearly shows that the Town of Superior is located
less than a 10 minute drive from the mine site on State Highway
60, providing an excellent access to the mine for both workers
and supplies.
The highway is one of the major East-West traffic arteries
in Arizona. Our community is serviced by a rail line and has a
skilled workforce, and housing bed base that is begging to be
utilized.
Many of our residents have mining experience. Our area has
numerous existing powerlines and other infrastructures that can
service the mine. The most important element of the project,
Mr. Chairman, are human.
Currently, vast numbers of Superior residents are forced to
commute to the Phoenix metropolitan area and nearby towns at
great expense, and time to find employment. The lack of stable
local employment has taken a toll on us.
Families that have resided for many generations are moving
away. The situation has not improved since the last time that I
addressed the Committee. I provided testimony to Congress on
two previous occasions. Previously, I discussed the importance
of a speedy passage of the land exchange to the economic and
social well-being of Superior and the neighboring communities.
I firmly believe that we have been waiting long enough for
Congress to take action on this legislation. We need jobs. We
need revenues now. It is time to act. A prestigious economic
consulting company recently prepared an economic study of the
proposed mining operation.
The study predicted a $61.4 billion of economic activity to
the State over the life of the mine. That is $61.4 billion.
This is exactly the type of economic shot in the arm that we
need, and which our Nation and our large budget deficit also
needs.
If we truly want jobs and revenue, Congress should be
taking the bull by the horns and approving and expediting this
project like this one. There are a few good local corporate
citizens.
Resolution Copper has voluntarily spent $30 million to
clean up the old tailing piles and other mining debris in our
community, and will be spending $20 million more to finish the
job.
They are funding programs at our school, and are expanding
our students' intellectual horizons and increasing their math,
science, and technological skills. Last, Mr. Chairman, the land
exchange will allow Superior to acquire lands adjacent to town.
We are only four square miles and completely surrounded by
public lands. The lands that Superior will acquire through
exchange are crucial in attracting new development, and will
provide significant economic opportunities.
Finally, I believe that Congress has an excellent
opportunity to provide an ideal balance between the expansion
of jobs, local and State revenues, and a diverse economic
activity, while conserving ecologically sensitive and pristine
lands for the future generation.
Unlike other economic stimulus plans, this legislation
comes without a handout. I submit to you my sincere hope that
the legislation can be swiftly approved to this remarkable
economic impact of this exchange, and can begin to be fully
implemented and realized.
We cannot afford to wait any longer. Our economic future is
at stake. I appreciate your consideration of this very
important bill.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hing follows:]
Statement of Michael O. Hing, Mayor,
Town of Superior, Arizona, on H.R. 1904
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
My name is Michael Hing. I am the Mayor of Superior, Arizona--a
small town in Pinal County, about 65 miles southeast of Phoenix. Our
town strongly supports H.R. 1904.
I am here today to discuss the future of my community. I represent
a town that has gone through extremely rough economic times. . .with
unemployment rates even higher than the 12% unemployment our County is
experiencing. However, we are on the verge of a major step forward. I
am speaking about the economic development that will occur if
Resolution Copper is able to expeditiously re-open and deepen the old
Magma Mine, which operated in our community for more than 80 years.
This land exchange represents an unprecedented opportunity to improve
the long-term economic vitality of my community, our local counties,
the state, and the region. It is one thing to talk about the creation
of new jobs and economic opportunity, and quite another to actually
take action. . .like H.R. 1904 does. . .that will expedite the creation
of those jobs and result in large increases in local, State and Federal
tax revenues.
Mr. Chairman, there are several very significant factors which make
our Town ideally suited to host and service a re-opened mine at Oak
Flat:
1. As this photo clearly shows, the Town of Superior is
located less than a 10 minute drive from the mine site on State
Highway 60. This provides excellent access to the mine for both
workers and supplies, without needing to build major new access
roads.
2. Highway 60 is one of the major east-west traffic arteries
in Arizona, and is in the process of being up-graded to 4 lane
status all the way to Superior. This, again, will assist the
entire mining operation.
3. We are serviced by an active rail line that runs from
Superior to Florence, where it interties directly to the Union
Pacific rail system. This will greatly facilitate the transport
of copper concentrate to smelting and market.
4. We have a skilled work force and housing/bed base that is
begging to be utilized, and have many residents with mining
experience.
5. Our area has numerous existing powerlines, power
substations and other infrastructure that can service the mine.
This will enable the operation to have far less environmental
impact than if entirely new facilities need to be built.
But the most important elements of this project, Mr. Chairman, are
human. Currently vast numbers of Superior residents are forced to
commute into the Phoenix metro area and nearby towns at great expense
and time to find employment. The lack of stable local employment has
taken its toll on us. Families that have resided here for generations
are moving away. This situation has not improved since the last time I
addressed this committee.
I provided testimony to Congress on two previous occasions, of
which I have attached copies. In my previous remarks, I discussed the
importance of speedy passage of the land exchange to the economic and
social well being of Superior and neighboring communities. I firmly
believe that Superior and the residents of the surrounding areas have
waited long enough for Congress to take action on this legislation. We
need jobs and revenue now! We don't want to see our economic future
studied, appealed and litigated to the point where the mine project is
delayed for decades because it is on Federal land. . .or where the
company pulls out altogether and takes the jobs and revenues overseas.
Congress has had bills before it on this land exchange for 5 years now.
It's time to act!
Elliott D. Pollack and Company--a prestigious economic and real
estate consulting company commissioned by Resolution Copper--recently
prepared an economic study of the proposed mining operation. This
study, which was originally completed in 2008 and updated recently,
provides a preview into the enormous economic and fiscal impacts of the
construction and operation of the mine project. The study predicts a
rather stunning $61.4 billion of economic activity to the state over
the life of the mine. . .$61.4 billion! This is exactly the type of
economic shot in the arm we need, and which our nation, and its large
budget deficit, needs too. If we truly want jobs and revenue, Congress
should be taking the bull by the horns and approving and expediting
projects like this one.
Mining towns have seen their share of boom and bust. We have
learned from this, and in partnership with Resolution Copper, have
already taken steps to diversify our economy. To mark this partnership,
the Town and Resolution Copper have entered into a landmark agreement
providing funding for programs that will help Superior enhance business
and residential opportunities. Resolution Copper has also voluntarily
spent $30 million to clean up the old tailings piles and other mining
debris in our community. . .and will be spending $20 million more to
finish the job. They received a prestigious environmental award from
Valley Forward, a Phoenix-based organization comprised of business and
civic leaders, for doing that. They are funding programs at our schools
that are expanding our students' intellectual horizons and increasing
their math, science and technology skills.
They are a good local corporate citizen, as is demonstrated by the
fact that they are headquartered right in our community, not at some
distant location.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, the land exchange of H.R. 1904 will allow
Superior to acquire lands adjacent to the town. Superior is only 4
square miles, and is almost completely surrounded by public lands. The
lands Superior will acquire through the exchange are crucial to
attracting new development and will provide significant economic
opportunities for us.
In conclusion, I believe Congress has an excellent opportunity to
provide an ideal balance between the expansion of jobs, local and state
revenues, and diverse economic activity while conserving ecologically
sensitive and pristine lands for future generations. Unlike other
economic stimulus plans, this legislation comes without a handout. I
submit to you my sincere hope that this legislation can be swiftly
approved so that the remarkable economic impacts of this exchange can
begin to be fully implemented and realized as soon as humanly possible.
We cannot afford to wait any longer. Our economic future is at stake.
I appreciate your consideration of this very important bill.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Supervisor Martyn.
STATEMENT OF BRYAN MARTYN, VICE CHAIRMAN,
PINAL COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Mr. Martyn. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my
name is Bryan Martyn. I serve as the Vice Chairman of the Board
of Supervisors for Pinal County, and I truly am honored to have
the opportunity to testify before you today.
Prior to holding an elected office, I served our country
for 20 years in the Army and in the Air Force as a helicopter
pilot, and fought in Desert Storm, Bosnia, and a couple of
tours in Iraq, and a couple of tours in Afghanistan.
There are no issues more important to Pinal County than the
swift passage of H.R. 1904. My Board is comprised of two
Democrats and a Republican. A simple point. This issue is not
about politics. It is about enhancing the quality of life of
the citizens of Pinal County and Arizona.
There are 3,147 counties in America. Pinal County is number
two for growth. Over 50 residents a day move into Pinal County
every day for the last 10 years. We need jobs for these new
residents.
Mr. Chairman, let me explain why this legislation is so
critical to Pinal County, and why our board has made this our
top priority. First, as someone who grew up in Arizona, I
believe that things that made our State great, and in
particular, are the five C's; copper, cotton, cattle, climate,
and citrus, and should continue to be the life blood of our
State.
Over the last 40 years the new C of construction has skewed
our economic diversity. We must improve the spectrum of our
economic opportunities. Today, we have an opportunity to turn
Arizona's economy back around and utilize the resources that
reside within our own State.
This is not your granddad's copper mine. The days of
stripping the lands are behind us. Improvements in safety,
operational technology, and environmental controls, clearly set
this mine apart.
We on the board of supervisors plan to hold Resolution
Copper to the highest standards of environment stewardship.
Resolution Copper has already demonstrated through their
actions, and not just lip service, that it is a good partner,
and it is dedicated to the residents of Pinal County and
Arizona. I see this in their commitment to education. The first
full generation of workers for this mine are currently in the
fourth grade. Resolution Copper recognizes this, and they have
obligated funding for local schools, community colleges, and
our universities, to ensure that my workforce in Pinal County
has the necessary math, science, and mechanical skills needed
to work in this hi-tech mine.
It is important to note that in Pinal County that one in
four of our high school graduates are the first person in their
family to graduate from high school. One in Four. The
educational focus on math and science will change the dynamic
and the future of my county.
In Arizona, we have an old saying. Whiskey is for drinking
and water is for fighting. One of the first questions that I
personally asked Resolution was where and how they planned to
get their water for this project.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to tell you that Resolution
Copper has been banking water and has secured the entire water
supply for the projected life of the project even before the
first ounce of copper has been pulled from the ground.
In Arizona, we take our water very seriously. The State
manages our water supply to the very last drop. I should also
point out that the water quality is one of my primary quality
of life concerns.
Resolution Copper's activities will be closely monitored by
ADEQ, the Arizona Department of Environment Quality, and they
are overseen by the EPA. In Arizona, our water quality is
regulated at standards that meet or exceed all EPA standards.
These standards are non-negotiable. Resolution Copper must
meet or exceed these standards if they want to operate in
Arizona. Pinal County currently has a 15 percent unemployment
rate.
The unemployment rate on our Indian Reservations is more
than triple that. We desperately need jobs. The Resolution
Copper project and their extended impact will put over 5,000
people into high-paying jobs. This is a jobs bill, gentlemen.
This project alone will yield more than $8 billion in new
tax revenue to the Federal Treasury, and another $2 billion to
the State, county, and local governments. As Senator Kyle put
it, this legislation is a stimulus without a handout.
Last, as you know, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1904 brings over
5,000 acres of unique and valuable conservation properties into
public ownership, which includes a 3,050 acre 7B Ranch as Dr.
Gosar mentioned.
The Nature Conservancy identifies this land as one of the
top conservation priorities on the San Pedro River. I urge you
and your Members to join me and the citizens of Pinal County in
support of this project, and quickly adopt H.R. 1904.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look
forward to any questions that you or the Committee might have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Martyn follows:]
Statement of Supervisor Bryan Martyn, Pinal County, on H.R. 1904
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
My name is Bryan Martyn. I serve as the Vice Chairman of the Pinal
County Board of Supervisors. I am honored to testify before you today.
I would also like to thank my good friend and our congressman, Dr. Paul
Gosar, for inviting me to testify.
Prior to holding elected office, I served our country for 20 years
as an Army AH-64 Apache helicopter pilot and as an Air Force Special
Operations helicopter pilot. I fought in Desert Storm, Bosnia and
served two tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although my service often
took me to foreign lands, I always yearned for the day to return home
to Arizona to serve my country in another capacity. For this reason, I
have stayed active in the issues that are critically important to my
community. There are few issues that are more critical to Pinal
County's economic growth, stability and quality of life than H.R. 1904.
Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I didn't personally acknowledge
Pinal County Board Chairman Pete Rios who was originally slated to
testify here today. He is home with his daughter who is due to give
birth any day now. Nevertheless, I want to convey his strong support
for H.R. 1904. Our third Board member, David Snider, also strongly
supports this legislation. My Board is comprised of two Democrats and
one Republican. My point is simple: this issue is not about politics;
it's about enhancing the quality of life of the citizens in Pinal
County and Arizona.
Allow me to give a brief background about Pinal County. It is
located in the center of the state between Arizona's two largest
counties, Maricopa (Phoenix) and Pima (Tucson) and is slightly larger
than the state of Connecticut in area (approximately 5,386 square
miles). In 1965, Pinal County's population was around 60,000. By 2000,
the population had tripled to over 181,000. Today's population has
exploded to more than 375,000 and by 2050 the population is estimated
to be nearly two million people. There are over 3,000 counties in
America. Pinal County is the second fastest growing county in the
nation and it appears that this growth will continue for the
foreseeable future.
Pinal County is defined by two distinct regions. The mountainous
eastern part of the county is characterized by elevations as high as
6,000 feet and a predominance of copper mining that brings good-paying
jobs to the area. The western part of the county is primarily low
desert areas where irrigated farming has been the dominant feature of
the land.
Only 25 percent of the land in Pinal County is privately owned. The
other 75 percent is owned by federal, state or Tribal entities (35
percent is State Trust Land, 20 percent is Indian communities, 11
percent is BLM land, 6.5 percent is national forests, and 2.5 percent
is parks/monuments). Consequently, the property tax base for the county
is extremely modest. The rapid influx of residential property has
outpaced retail and industrial properties. This growth has put severe
strains on critical infrastructure needs, such as transportation,
water, and energy services.
Mr. Chairman, please let me explain why this legislation is so
critical to Pinal County and why our Board has made this our top
priority.
First, as someone who grew up in Arizona, I believe that the things
that made our state what it is today, in particular, our five C's--
cotton, copper, cattle, citrus and climate--should continue to be our
state's lifeblood. Over the past forty years, the new ``C'' of
construction has changed the economic dynamic of the state. We have
lost some of our diversity and because of the economic downturn, the
state and County budgets have drowned our ability to provide some of
the most basic services to our constituents. We must explore every
opportunity to improve the spectrum of economic opportunities in
Arizona. Copper was once known as ``king''. We now have an opportunity
to turn Arizona's economy around that would help millions in our state.
With regard to mining, members of the Committee must understand
that modern mining has evolved in dramatic fashion. This is not your
granddad's copper mine. The days of stripping the land are behind us.
Improvements in safety, operational technology and environmental
controls clearly set this project apart. Based upon our working
relationship with Resolution Copper to date, Pinal County believes that
the Resolution project is going to be one of the most environmentally-
sensitive mines in the nation. We, on the Board of Supervisors, plan to
hold Resolution to the highest standard of environmental stewardship.
Resolution Copper has already demonstrated through actions, not just
lip service, that it is a good partner and dedicated to the residents
of Pinal County and Arizona.
I see this in its commitment to education. The first full
generation of workers for this mine is currently in fourth grade.
Resolution Copper recognizes this and has obligated funding to local
schools, community colleges and universities to ensure that the
workforce in Pinal County has the necessary math, science and
mechanical skills needed to work in this high-tech mine. It is
important to note that Pinal County is a truly emerging county. Today,
one in four of our high school graduates, is the first person in their
family to graduate high school. The educational focus on math and
science will change the future of our county.
Resolution Copper has also operated with consideration for the
environment. It took over the nearly century-old Magma Mine site in
Superior which required an extensive environmental cleanup. Resolution
Copper was not obligated to complete this cleanup for decades, but
voluntarily jumped headfirst into a $50 million reclamation, which is
already 60 percent complete. I have personally witnessed its progress
and can sleep comfortably at night knowing that Resolution Copper's
actions have ensured that we have a clean, safer, and healthier
environment for our children and grandchildren.
In Arizona, we have an old say, ``Whiskey is for drinking and water
is for fighting.'' Everyone is concerned about water and what water
source will be used for the life of this project. One of the first
questions I personally asked Resolution was where it planned to acquire
water. Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to hear that Resolution Copper has
been banking water and will have secured the entire water supply for
the life of the project before the first ounce of copper comes out of
the ground.
Additionally, Resolution has already spent literally millions of
dollars on water studies in the area to date. These studies have
indicated that there will be no impact on the water supply of Superior,
Globe-Miami, San Carlos or any other community. It is because of this
that I am certain that the future of the regional water supply is
secure.
I should also point out that water quality is one of my primary
``quality of life'' concerns. Resolution Copper's activities will be
closely monitored by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ), under authority delegated to it by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In Arizona, our water quality is
regulated at standards that meet or exceed EPA requirements. These
standards are non-negotiable. Resolution Copper must meet or exceed
these standards if they want to operate in Arizona.
Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, we cannot ignore the massive
economic benefits this project will bring. Pinal County and Arizona
have a potential windfall in our backyard that will offer much needed
job and economic opportunities. Pinal County currently has a nearly 15
percent unemployment rate. The unemployment rate on our Indian
reservations is more than triple that number. We desperately need jobs.
The Resolution Copper project will put over 1,400 people into high-
paying jobs. These jobs have the potential to create more than $40
billion in economic activity.
As elected leaders, it is critical that we send a positive message
about economic development to our citizens and to the world. Namely,
that Pinal County, Arizona, and America are open for business. This
project alone will yield more than $8 billion in new revenue to the
federal treasury and another $2 billion to state, county and local
governments. As Senator Jon Kyl puts it, this legislation is ``a
stimulus without a handout.''
Pinal County has not been immune to the negative effects of the
recent recession. While still growing, the County yearns for good,
high-paying jobs. The Resolution Copper project is one of the biggest
economic development projects in Arizona and the largest in Pinal
County. The average annual projected pay is slated to be approximately
$70,000 per year for a County that has double-digit unemployment and an
average wage that is less than half of what Resolution Copper will
provide its employees.
Lastly, as you know, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1904 brings over 5,000
acres of unique and valuable conservation properties into public
ownership. This includes the 3,050 acre 7B Ranch property parcel in
Pinal County that covers seven miles on both sides of the renowned San
Pedro River, and immediately abuts conservation lands downstream from
it that are managed by The Nature Conservancy and others. The
Conservancy has observed that the 7B Ranch is one of the top three
conservation priorities on the entire river, and is part of one of, and
I quote, ``most critical and irreplaceable migration corridors in the
western hemisphere for neo-tropical birds''.
In many ways, this legislation exemplifies why we chose this
profession; to improve the quality of life of our constituents. This
project represents all we value as Americans: stewardship of our
environment, improved education of our children and our workforce,
enhanced economic prosperity and the ability to make a better future
for those around us.
I urge you to join me and the citizens of Pinal County in support
for this project, and I urge the Committee to quickly adopt and pass
H.R. 1904.
Mr. Chairman, thanks again for the opportunity to testify before
you today. I look forward to any questions the Subcommittee may have.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Cherry.
STATEMENT OF JON CHERRY, VICE PRESIDENT,
RESOLUTION COPPER MINING
Mr. Cherry. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about
this very important bill. My name is Jon Cherry, and I am Vice
President for Resolution Copper Company, a United States
corporation headquartered in Superior, Arizona, and a
subsidiary of Rio Tinto, one of the largest mining companies in
the world.
I am here today in support of H.R. 1904, which directs a
land exchange to consolidate ownership of the land where we
plan to invest over $6 billion of private capital to develop a
major copper mine, which would create more than 3,700 badly
needed mining jobs in Arizona.
My desire today is to impress upon you three important
reasons why the exchange deserves your support. First, the
demand for copper is a critical building block for the national
security, and our modern standard of living.
Second, the economic significance of this project for the
local community, the State, and our country, and third, to give
you confidence that we will operate in a responsible and
sustainable manner, and that we can and will comply with all
regulatory requirements.
Copper is fundamental to our modern society, and has an
ever increasing role in the new green economy and green energy
applications, as we cannot have electricity without copper.
Unfortunately, the United States' dependence on foreign copper
has been on the rise for many years.
In fact, we currently import about 30 percent of our
demand. If we do not continue to explore and develop our
domestic resources, our dependence on foreign resources will
only increase.
The copper resource that we discovered and want to mine
near Superior is one of the most significant copper resources
to ever be found in North America. In fact, it is the third
largest known undeveloped copper deposit in the world.
It has the capacity to meet 25 percent of the Nation's
copper demand for many decades based on current demand and
usage, which leads me to my second point, the economic
importance of this mine.
Jobs are at the heart of this project. Earlier this year,
Resolution Copper commissioned Pollack and Associates to update
an economic impact study to evaluate the benefits of our
project on the local and State economy.
The study found that a $6 billion investment to construct
the mine will lead to 3,700 jobs and $220 million in annual
payroll. This does not include the benefits from the additional
land that the Town of Superior will gain as part of the
exchange, which means hundreds of additional jobs and millions
of dollars of additional revenues and taxes.
Over its lifetime, it is estimated that the mine will have
a total economic benefit to the State of Arizona of $61
billion, and will generate tax revenue of nearly $20 billion,
of which $14 billion is expected to go to the Federal
Government.
While the economic benefits are significant, there are net
environment gains as well. In exchange for the 2,400 acres of
Federal land, Resolution Copper will transfer eight parcels of
privately held land to the United States Forest Service and
BLM, totaling about 5,300 acres.
These are highly desirable conservation lands that host the
most important river basin and endangered species habitats.
These lands were selected after consultation with the United
States Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, The
Nature Conservancy, Audubon, and other conservation groups.
It is worth noting that two of these parcels would be
included in national conservation areas. On the other hand the
Federal land Resolution Copper gains in the exchange is
underlined and surrounded by current and historic mining
operations, some of which are more than a hundred years old in
an area known as the Copper Triangle, which is shown here on
the map above you.
This map illustrates why it is called the Copper Triangle.
You can see current and historic mining operations everywhere
you look, including the historic site where the new mine is
proposed.
Just as important are the existing infrastructure that are
already in place at in the surrounding mine site. The point
that I want to leave you with is that the Federal land that is
part of this exchange is located in an area of a historic
mining district that will continue to have mining and produce
copper for many decades into the future.
Now for my third and final point. We are profoundly aware
of the responsibility entrusted in us to be a good steward of
the land. The mining industry has made tremendous advancements
in recent years, both in technology and in the way that it
approaches the social and natural environment, and I am proud
to say that my company has been at the forefront of many of
those changes.
We are completely committed to constructing and operating a
safe and environmentally responsible mine. That is why we
support and want everyone to be aware that prior to the land
exchange being completed that compliance with all applicable
Federal statutes is required, including most of the same ones
that are required by NEPA.
Among others, this includes the National Historic
Preservation Act, Section 106, Consultation with Native
American Tribes; and Section 7, Endangered Species Act
Consultation With the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
In conclusion, we believe that we have a project that will
produce a large domestic supply of a critical metal that is the
fundamental building block for the modern world, and will
create more than 3,700 desperately needed mining related jobs,
generate more than $20 billion in taxes, and benefit the
economy of the State of Arizona by $61 billion over the life of
the project, and do all of this in an area with over a hundred
years of historic mining activities, and in a way that
minimizes impacts to the environment, and adds valuable avian
and wildlife habitat to the Federal domain.
It is for these reasons that the land exchange embodied in
H.R. 1904 should be advanced at its earliest possible date.
Thank you again for the invitation to speak with you today, and
I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cherry follows:]
Statement of Jon Cherry, Vice-President,
Resolution Copper Company, on H.R. 1904
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,
INTRODUCTION
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about this
very important bill. My name is Jon Cherry and I am Vice-President of
the Resolution Copper Company, a U.S. Corporation headquartered in
Superior, AZ and subsidiary of Rio Tinto, one of the largest mining
companies in the world. Resolution Copper Company is the managing
partner of the Resolution Copper Mining LLC, an LLC owned jointly
between Rio Tinto (55%) and BHP Billiton (45%), and referred to as
Resolution Copper throughout this testimony. I am here today in support
of H.R. 1904, which directs a land exchange to consolidate ownership of
the land where we plan to invest over $6 billion of private capital to
develop the third largest known underground copper deposit in the
world, while creating over 3,700 badly needed mining jobs in Arizona.
Please note, as shown on my first display that we already own valid
mining claims on roughly 70 percent of the land we are seeking to
acquire. We estimate that the copper produced from this project will
produce 25 percent of the U.S. copper demand (based on current demand)
for more than 40 years from a secure and environmentally responsible
domestic source.
THE LOGIC OF THE EXCHANGE
The land exchange of H.R. 1904 transfers 2,422 acres of National
Forest land into our ownership which is underlain and surrounded by
current and historic mining operations and mining claims, some of which
are more than 100 years old. Simultaneously, Resolution Copper
transfers approximately 5,300 acres in eight different privately held
land parcels to the government to be managed by the USFS or BLM. With
these eight properties, this land exchange will result in very
significant net gains to the United States in:
1) river bottoms and riparian lands;
2) habitat or potential habitat for several threatened,
endangered or sensitive plant and animal species;
3) areas identified as national and international important
bird habitat by the Audubon Society and Bird Life
International;
4) public recreational opportunities;
5) year-round water resources--a rarity in many parts of
Arizona; and
6) protection of the important geographic feature of Apache
Leap.
As a company we recognize that mining disturbs the land. However,
we believe in a sustainable development approach to mining, and more
than seven years ago began the process to identify and secure lands for
long-term conservation and habitat protection as an offset and
improvement to the federal land within the mining district that would
be disturbed as a result of our operations. To accomplish this, we went
first to the Forest Service, BLM, Nature Conservancy, Audubon Society,
Trust for Public Land, Arizona Game and Fish and others interested in
land conservation to ask them where mitigation lands might be located.
As a result of their input, we now own eight parcels of land, totaling
more than 5,300 acres which we will be conveying to either the BLM or
Forest Service in the exchange. These include:
the 3,050 acre 7B Ranch running for 7 miles along
both sides of Arizona's renowned San Pedro River. The Nature
Conservancy is currently managing the 7B for us together with
adjacent land it owns. The 7B lies along one of the most
important migratory bird corridors in the entire United States
and also has what may be the largest ancient mesquite bosque,
or forest, in the entire southwest;
the 940 acre Appleton Ranch which the National
Audubon Society manages for us until it can be conveyed to the
BLM for addition to the Las Cienegas National Conservation
area. It is an extremely diverse area biologically, boasting
more than 90 native grass species and 470 native plant species;
a 640 acre in-holding along East Clear Creek in the
Coconino National Forest near Flagstaff, including 2 miles of
trout stream and other habitat for a variety of sensitive fish
and wildlife species; and
5 other in-holdings in the Tonto National Forest that
are long-time Forest Service acquisition priorities.
Lands were also identified to help provide the Town of Superior
with the opportunity for economic growth.
The goal of the land exchange is quite simple. It consolidates our
ownership of the land where we will be developing and operating the
mine. As the map shows, the current fragmented land ownership pattern
between Resolution Copper and the Forest Service is a logistical and
regulatory jumble. It serves neither public nor private interests, and
due to operational and safety considerations, continued Forest Service
ownership of the land will not benefit the public, recreationally, or
any other way, once the physical mining operation begins.
Display #2 is what is known as the Copper Triangle in Arizona. The
three points of the triangle are anchored by the old mining towns of
Globe/Miami, Hayden/Winkleman and Superior all of which have active
copper mines except Superior. However, the old Magma mine at Superior
is the platform from which Resolution Copper is launching its new
mining project. Our project incorporates some of the old surface and
underground workings and infrastructure of the Magma Mine, and is
located right in the middle of the Copper Triangle. Running counter-
clockwise, you can see Asarco's very large Ray Mine in the center of
the triangle, then Asarco's Smelter and tailings in Hayden to the
right, the Christmas Mine to the north of Winkleman, the Globe and
Miami area open pit mines to the west, including the very large
Freeport-McMoRan mine, BHP mine and Carlota and BHP Pinto Valley
Mines--the latter of which is a possible location for the tailings from
our mining operation, where we could fill up existing open pits and
reclaim them.
Display #3 is a close-up of the Resolution Copper project site
which shows even more of the existing infrastructure in detail,
including all of the various drill holes that have been drilled in the
area, including areas where 67 new exploratory holes have been drilled
since 2001 shown by pink dots. The point I want to leave with you is
that the federal land that is part of this exchange is located in an
area of a historic mining district that will continue to have mining
and produce copper for many decades into the future. Conversely, the
land Resolution Copper would trade to the government is significantly
larger and contains lands of much higher conservation and habitat
value, but which also will benefit the public for generations to come.
Finally, I have three photos of the mine site which were taken just
last month. The first shows the mine site in dead center, with the Town
of Superior to the right, Asarco's very large open pit Ray Mine to the
south. . .(it has been continuously producing copper since 1880). .
.and other mines to the north. The second photo shows a closer view,
with the mine site in the lower right. You can see our head frame and
shafts and the numerous roads which cross the area. The last photo is a
composite panorama which shows various other mines, roads, transmission
lines, the large power substation near the mine and the Town of
Superior. As you can see, one could not find a better place to build a
new mine with all the existing infrastructure that already exists in
the area.
ECONOMIC AND NATIONAL IMPACT
Earlier this year Resolution Copper commissioned Pollack &
Associates to conduct a new economic impact study to evaluate the
impacts of our project to the local and state economy. A copy of the
executive summary of this report is included with the written
testimony, but I would like to highlight a few important statistics
from this report.
As a result of the $6 billion dollar investment to construct and
operate the mine, the following would occur:
Jobs Created--over 3,700 jobs related to mining
During our current engineering studies
approximately 100 Resolution employees have full time
jobs and more than 400 contractors are on site on a
daily basis
1400 direct high-paying mining jobs would be
created in the future
More than 2300 indirect mining employment jobs
would be created in the future
Potential for hundreds more jobs in Superior
from the land that the town acquires from the land
exchange which will be used for economic development
Economic Impact to the State of Arizona
$61 billion life of mine impact from mining
$960 million average annual impact from mining
Taxes
$19 billion in federal, state and local taxes
over the life of project from mining
$14 billion of which is in federal taxes
FAIR VALUE OF THE EXCHANGE
I should also mention that even though the proposed land exchange
will utilize all aspects of the established Federal appraisal process,
we have added Section 6 to the bill to ensure that the United States
will not be short-changed if the appraisers are wrong about the volume
of copper we will acquire in the exchange. Section 6 says that if we
ever produce more copper from the land than is anticipated in the land
exchange appraisal, we will make a value adjustment payment to the
United States on any excess production. Thus, even if the Federal land
appraisal is off to some degree, the United States will receive full
economic value for the minerals it conveys to us. Conversely, if the
land that Resolution Copper provides to the government as part of the
exchange is determined to be more valuable than the land it receives,
Resolution Copper will donate that difference to the government. In
addition, Resolution Copper has secured an additional property to
replace the Oak Flat campground and is working with the Town of
Superior to ensure that recreational camping and related activities can
continue in the area.
RESPONSIBLE MINING
Creating jobs, mining and protecting the environment are not
mutually exclusive positions. Recognizing that society needs the metals
and jobs that we produce as well as a healthy environment requires that
appropriate study, planning and mitigation be considered and
incorporated into any mine design. Resolution Copper has already spent
more than $33 million to date studying the hydrogeology in and around
the mine project, and has drilled more than 30 holes in the area to
assess the water resources. These activities so far show little if any
impact to local water quantity or quality from the new operations,
including no impact to the San Carlos Apache Reservation, the western
boundary of which is located more than 20 miles further to the east of
the project site, and which is also separated from our project by a
7,800 foot tall mountain range. We built a new $10 million water
treatment plant to treat water from the old underground mine workings
that we are dewatering and are putting that water to beneficial use
with local farmers for irrigation. We have spent more than $30 million
cleaning up and reclaiming the old mine site in Superior as part of a
$50 million reclamation program--work that by law isn't required to be
implemented for decades. We have also purchased and banked
approximately 240,000 acre-feet of water for potential future
operations. We have conducted numerous flora, fauna and cultural
resources studies. All of these data and studies will be incorporated
into a mine plan of operations that will be submitted to regulatory
agencies for the NEPA process as well as various federal, state and
local agency permits.
As part of the land exchange, it is worth noting that Resolution
Copper is also transferring more than 100 acres of privately held land
to the government as well as foregoing any mining beneath the
geographic feature know as Apache Leap to help secure long-term
protection of and create a buffer for this important geographic
feature.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, our nation has been struggling through the worst
economic downturn since the Great Depression. We have been losing many
manufacturing jobs, raw materials production and tax revenues to
overseas endeavors. Thus, we believe that when an opportunity comes
along to develop a very large mine from a reliable domestic source that
produces a metal that is vital to our national security and modern
lifestyle. . .and that source is in a location where significant
development infrastructure already exists. . .and where there appear to
be minimal environmental conflicts, we should avail ourselves of the
opportunity. Copper, the metal that will be produced from this mine, is
the fundamental building block for the new green economy including
hybrid and electric cars, solar panels, wind turbines and smart grids.
We know that the temptation always exists for some to say ``put it
over there, not here'', and that there is no place where a large
development can be located without some impact on the environment.
However, you can only mine where the mineral is found and we believe we
are truly fortunate to have found such a large mineral resource in an
area where developing it will have minimal adverse impacts and at the
same time such tremendous benefits.
Our project will:
produce a very large amount of a critical metal right
here at home that is the fundamental building block for the new green
economy including hybrid and electric cars, solar panels, wind turbines
and smart grids;
create more than 3,700 mining related jobs that are
desperately needed in an area of high unemployment; with hundreds of
other potential non-mining related jobs
generate more than $19 billion in tax revenues to
Federal, State and local government coffers;
benefit the economy of the state of Arizona by $61
billion over the life of the project from these mining related jobs
add valuable avian, wildlife and plant habitat to the
Federal domain; and
do all of that in an area with over 100 years of historic
mining activities and in a way that minimizes impacts to the
environment.
If we as a nation are truly serious about creating new jobs with
private investment, reducing long-term budget deficits, and producing
here at home rather than abroad the base metals that serve our national
interests, then the land exchange embodied in H.R. 1904 should be
advanced at the earliest possible date. To do otherwise, and to
continue to subject it to prolonged study and delay will only serve the
interests of those who, while perhaps well intentioned, cannot see
their way to any significant natural resource production, and in so
doing ship our jobs, tax revenues and resource production overseas. I
know that is a strong statement, but I believe it comports with today's
realities.
Thank you again for the invitation to share our views with you
today and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. President Lewis.
STATEMENT OF HON. SHAN LEWIS, PRESIDENT, INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL
OF ARIZONA, VICE-CHAIRMAN, FORT MOJAVE INDIAN TRIBE
Mr. Lewis. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Bishop, and
Ranking Member Grijalva, and Members of the Subcommittee. My
name is Shan Lewis, and I serve as President of the Inter
Tribal Council of Arizona, which includes 20 Federally
recognized American Indian Tribes, Nations, and Communities.
I am also the Vice Chairman of the Fort Mojave Indian
Tribe. The Inter Tribal Council opposes H.R. 1904. In fact,
tribes from all over the country have expressed their
opposition to this bill because threats to our sacred sites in
Arizona present a threat to all sacred sites across the
country.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to announce several tribal
leaders who are here from the San Carlos Apache Tribe, Chairman
Terry Rambler, Councilperson Theo Ebsen, and former Chairman
and current Councilperson Windsor Nelson, Senior. Also present
from the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation is Councilperson
Treasurer Ms. Pamela Mile.
As written, H.R. 1904 would transfer 2,400 acres of tribal
ancestral lands at Oak Flat to two foreign mining giants, Rio
Tinto and BHP. Rio Tinto is owned in part by China. These lands
are fundamental to the religions traditions and culture and, in
fact, identify the members of the Yavapai-Apache and Zuni
Tribes, among others.
It is disturbing that the land exchange would take place
and forego the trust responsibilities of the United States to
Indian tribes as manifested in treaties, Executive Orders,
Federal laws, and other policies that are intended to recognize
and protect American Indian religion and culture.
While it may be difficult for non-Indians to understand, it
is equally difficult for us to convey the profound importance
of this area. As Yavapai and Apaches have explained, spiritual
beings, Gah, exist within Oak Flat, and would be affected by
this bill.
The Gah live and breath within this place. Under the bill,
Oak Flat would become the property of foreign corporations. It
is indeed shocking to us to consider that Congress would allow
our ancestral lands to be wholly owned by foreign interests,
who have no conception of Native American religious values,
culture, and history.
H.R. 1904 calls for government-to-government consultation
with Indian tribes, but only after the enactment of the Act.
However, once in private ownership, Oak Flat would lose
virtually all Federal protection and will face near certain
destruction.
Under this bill no mitigation is possible, and alternatives
would not be considered, and the views of Native Americans will
have no impact. Essentially, consultation will be nothing more
than a hollow promise for our people.
Every American understands that the desecration of any one
religion affects all religions. The United States Constitution
guarantees freedom of religion. Doesn't the religion of Native
Americans deserve the same protection?
Fundamental to the integrity of the entire Oak Flat area is
the presence of water. Water is life giving and has always been
recognized, respected, and honored by our people. H.R. 1904
does not require any studies of the impact of their massive
mining project on the regional water supply through depletion,
pollution, and other harms caused by the project.
Water is more precious than copper, more precious than
gold. Without water the entire ecosystem of Oak Flat will
collapse and destroy the integrity of this place as a sacred
site forever.
Some characterize H.R. 1904 as a jobs bill. However, we
question the number and types of jobs to be created by this
mine. Rio Tinto stated that the proposed mine will be highly
automated. Automation of this type substantially reduces the
number of workers that have in the past been needed for metal
mining.
Regardless of Rio Tinto's promise of jobs, such jobs cannot
replace Oak Flat. In conclusion, there are times that the
government should just say no, and this is one of them. This
type of mining in this location simply should not occur.
This mining proposal under H.R. 1904 raises too many
questions. These questions will not be resolved, and may never
be explored because the bill turns the land over to Rio Tinto
before there can be a hard look at the consequences of this
action.
Our children and future generations of all citizens of
Arizona will suffer as a result. We urge this Subcommittee to
not move forward with H.R. 1904. We have some additional
information that we would ask be submitted for the record.
Thank you, and I would be happy to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lewis follows:]
Statement of Shan Lewis, Vice Chairman, Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, and
President, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, on behalf of The Inter
Tribal Council of Arizona on H.R. 1904
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Mr. Chairman, Subcommittee Members and Guests. Good Afternoon. My
name is Shan Lewis, Vice Chairman, Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, and
President of the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (ITCA). My Tribe is a
member of the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona.
I speak today on behalf of the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona
which consists of 20 federally recognized American Indian Tribes,
Nations and Communities with lands within the State of Arizona, New
Mexico and California. We join together on matter of tribal, national,
and statewide importance to the Tribes.
H.R. 1904, introduced on May 13, 2011, by Representative Gosar and
various co-sponsors, would allow Resolution Copper--a joint venture of
foreign mining giants Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton (collectively, ``Rio
Tinto'')--to secure private ownership of over 2,400 acres of U.S.
Forest Service lands and the purported domestic copper supplies located
underneath these lands in order to facilitate an unprecedented large-
scale block cave copper mine in the Oak Flat region, which is bounded
by portions of Apache Leap and Gaan (``Devil's'') Canyon, and which
includes the 760 acre Oak Flat Withdrawal (collectively ``Oak Flat''),
which is within the ancestral lands of Western Apache and Yavapai
tribes. You should also consider that 9% of RioTinto, the controlling
interest in Resolution Copper, is currently held by China, by and
through its state-controlled Aluminum Corporation of China, known as
Chinalco. If the exchange goes through, China will end up holding a
4.5% private interest in the ancestral lands of certain American Indian
Nations in Arizona, so that they can mine this land with virtual
impunity. A legislative transfer of land in essence to a foreign
government as presented by H.R. 1904 is offensive to us and to the rest
of the country.
The Oak Flat region remains today a place of profound religious,
cultural, and historic significance to the San Carlos Apache Tribe, the
White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the
Yavapai-Apache Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe and other American Indian
Nations.
Because of its importance to these American Indian tribes, nations
and communities, the Oak Flat region, as well as specific places within
the Oak Flat Withdrawal area, are eligible for inclusion in, and
protection under, the Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 470 et seq. (``NHPA''). Further, Oak Flat meets the
criteria to be identified as a ``sacred site'' within the meaning of
Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites, May 24, 1996, 61 Fed. Reg.
26771 (``E.O. 13007''), as well as pursuant to the American Indian
Religious Freedom Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1996, et. seq. (``AIRFA''), and
related laws, regulations and policies.
Oak Flat should not be transferred to the ownership of Rio Tinto in
order to facilitate a block cave mine on and underneath these lands.
Transfer of these lands to Rio Tinto for mining purposes will deplete
and contaminate water resources from nearby watersheds and aquifers and
result in the collapse of the Earth, irrevocably damaging the landscape
of Oak Flat, and the wildlife, plants and other natural features of its
ecosystems and, thereby, the very integrity of Oak Flat relative to its
crucial role in American Indian religion, traditions, and culture. Our
strong unity on these points is underscored in numerous ITCA
Resolutions on this matter (see enclosed).
Through Congressional action, H.R. 1904 lifts the Oak Flat
Withdrawal, which has protected these publicly owned lands for the
American and American Indian peoples since 1955, when President
Eisenhower signed BLM Public Land Order 1229. This Order specifically
put Oak Flat off-limits to all future mining activity, despite its
presence in a known mining district. In fact, although President Nixon
issued BLM Public Land Order 5132 in 1971 to modify PLO 1229 he
expressly precluded any form of appropriation of Oak Flat ``under the
U.S. mining laws.'' These two executive orders--from two different
Republican administrations--both mandated that these lands were to be
preserved in perpetuity with special emphasis on prohibiting mining
activities at Oak Flat. There is no compelling reason for these Orders
to be overturned today, especially to benefit two foreign mining
interests.
Although the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona is not opposed to
mining in general, this form of mining and mining in this location is
highly offensive to us, and would pose a danger to many important
values of this region.
The 20 member Tribes of the ITCA therefore oppose H.R. 1904 and
mining activities at Oak Flat.
Cultural and Religious Effects of the Proposed Exchange
Congress has enacted legislation to protect the religious, cultural
and social integrity of Indian people. This was to ensure (among other
things) that the policies and procedures of various Federal agencies,
as they may impact the exercise of traditional Indian religious
practices, are brought into compliance with the constitutional
injunction that Congress shall make no laws abridging the free exercise
of religion.
It is important to understand that the religious and cultural
importance of the Oak Flat area does not only reside in isolated spots
but also in the integrity of the ecosystem and environment of the area
as a whole. Thus, impacts to any part of Oak Flat have an impact on the
religious and cultural integrity of the area as a whole--both as a holy
and religious place and as a place of continued traditional and
cultural importance to Apache, Yavapai, and other indigenous people.
For example, Apache People call Oak Flat ``Chich'il Bildagoteel,''
or ``a Flat with Acorn Trees'' and it lies at the heart of T'iis Tseban
Country, which is associated with at least eight Apache clans and two
Western Apache bands--the Pinal Band and the Aravaipa Band. Oak Flat
area is called Gohwhy Gah Edahpbah by the Yavapai people. Oak Flat has,
for generations, played a crucial role in the exercise of Apache
religious, traditional, and cultural practices, and these practices
continue to this day. Since time immemorial these tribes have performed
a variety of deeply ceremonial dances on these highly cherished
grounds. Oak Flat has long been used--and is used today--for religious
ceremonies and its existence continues to enhance the lives of Apaches
and Yavapais.
The oak groves at Oak Flat have always provided an abundant source
of acorns that serve as an important food source for the Apache people.
There are also hundreds of traditional Apache plants and other living
things in the Oak Flat area that are crucial to Apache religion and
culture. Some of these plants are common and some are among the holy
medicines known to and harvested by only gifted Apache herbalists.
Similarly, Yavapais also have relied on the abundance of Oak Flat for
physical and spiritual sustenance. While these plants can be gathered
in other areas, only the plants within the Oak Flat area are imbued
with the unique power of this area.
Allowing Rio Tinto to conduct block cave mining at Chich'il
Bildagoteel (Oak Flat) will destroy the living things and ecosystems
that are associated with the Holy Beings that Apaches depend on, in
particular a certain kind of Gaan--all powerful Mountain Spirits--with
whom the Oak Flat area is associated. These Holy Beings are among the
most powerful, and they must be respected if the Apache people are to
receive their power. Without their power, the Apache people cannot
conduct their ceremonies and they become vulnerable to a wide variety
of illness. The mining that will be facilitated by this land exchange
legislation will also adversely impact the power of the plants that
Apaches harvest and use within the Oak Flat area for ceremonial,
religious, medicinal, and other purposes. The Yavapai are connected to
this land in ways that cannot be expressed through the English word.
The land and its presence is apart of who they are and defines them as
a People. Their language reflects their consecutiveness to the land.
Once the land is gone part of their language will die forever.
Oak Flat Should Not be Sacrificed In Exchange for Other Lands Selected
by Rio Tinto and Offered to the United States
To build support to the block and cave mining operations, Rio Tinto
proposes the acquisition and conservation of a handful of land parcels
scattered in other locations within Arizona.
While some of these offered lands may have value for the American
public, none of them have been recognized through their previous
withdrawal by Executive Order, like the Oak Flat area, nor do they have
the totality of values as a sacred site or traditional cultural
property recognized by American Indians.
Moreover, if the offered parcels are as meritorious and deserving
of conservation and public use, as Oak Flat was determined to be over
50 years ago by President Eisenhower, those who seek the conservation
of these parcels should look for funding help from such potential
resources as the Land and Water Conservation Fund, The Conservation
Fund, The Nature Conservancy, The Trust For Public Lands, the Paul
Allen Foundation and others--not by sacrificing lands at Oak Flat. No
one should attempt to, nor can they, put a price on the value of an
intact and healthy ecosystem within the Oak Flat area or its adjacent
lands, or on safe drinking water, or the protection of spiritual,
religious, cultural, and archeological values. The United States, as
Trustee for all American Indians should not attempt to trade away these
priceless values in order to facilitate the cheapest method of mining,
which in the end has exclusive benefit for Rio Tinto (including China)
and BHP and their shareholders.
It is highly disappointing, and indeed disturbing, that H.R. 1904
has simply cast aside the valid concerns of American Indians regarding
the need to protect the religious, cultural and traditional
relationship of indigenous peoples to the Oak Flat region.
Block Cave Mining Impacts and the Collapse and Destruction of the Oak
Flat Area
As noted above, and in prior testimony on this proposed exchange
during the 111th Congress, the ITCA is not opposed to mining in
general. We are, however, strongly opposed to block and cave mining in
this location. Block and cave mining here would (among other things)
collapse the surface area on public lands, destroy the integrity of the
Oak Flat as a traditional cultural property and sacred site, and
endanger the water supplies of Gaan Canyon, Queen Creek, Queen Creek
Canyon, and the springs, seeps and other important water features in
the surround countryside for miles around.
Rio Tinto has said that the reason for the block and cave mining
approach is that it is ``cheaper'' for them. While bottom line
considerations are clearly important to Rio Tinto, the Federal
Government, our Trustee, must not let such factors pressure it into
agreeing to destructive practices. Mining experts attest that there is
no assurance once the ground starts moving in a block and cave mining
operation that it will not ``run with you'', or result in a collapse
from the bottom of the operation up to the surface.
Despite the fact that Apache Leap has been removed from this land
exchange in H.R. 1904, under the normal requirements for a land
exchange in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act
(``NEPA'') and the Federal Land Policy Management Act (``FLPMA''),
Congress would require federal decision makers to conduct
interdisciplinary studies and closely scrutinize the inevitable and
destructive impacts of the mining project on Oak Flat, Apache Leap, and
nearby Gaan (Devil's) Canyon. They would be required to consult with
American Indian Tribes and interested members of the public throughout
the process, and would have the obligation to consider the impact of
the surface collapse from the mine on Oak Flat and the landscapes found
in this area as required by the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA) and other laws. As part of this process, the federal decision
makers would also be required to evaluate the impacts from the collapse
of the surface at and throughout Oak Flat and the depletion and
potential contamination of the region's water supplies, and therefore,
the resulting damage to the traditional cultural and religious elements
of this landscape and the importance of Oak Flat as a sacred site and
traditional cultural property. Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton seek to have
Congress exempt them from virtually all of these important requirements
of the law through H.R. 1904.
It should also be noted that while H.R. 1904 would purport to
prohibit ``commercial mineral extraction'' from under the proposed
conservation easement, it does not prohibit Rio Tinto from tunneling
under Apache Leap or from conducting other below ground operations
directly below the escarpment. In addition, nothing in H.R. 1904 or in
the ``NEPA'' like review of Rio Tinto's ``mining plan of operations''
would require Rio Tinto to cease its mining operations and block caving
activities at Oak Flat should these operations and activities show
signs of a more extensive surface collapse than anticipated, including
the potential damage or violation of Apache Leap. Moreover, RCM makes
no guarantees that they will prevent such a catastrophe.
Finally, Apache Leap is only part of the larger sacred site that is
encompassed by the Oak Flat Under this proposed legislation, Apache
Leap would eventually be bordered by thousands of acres of land that
will be irretrievably harmed by the proposed mining project and the
destruction to the healthy ecosystems of the entire Oak Flat Withdrawal
area.
The Mining Project Will Dangerously Deplete Groundwater and Surface
Water Supplies Throughout the Region
Water is a source of life for all people. The existence of water at
Oak Flat, including life-giving springs, seeps and surface supplies, is
fundamental to the health of Oak Flat's ecosystems and therefore, to
the religion, culture and very identity of both the Apache and the
Yavapai people.
As noted briefly above, however, the massive mining operation to be
facilitated by H.R. 1904, threatens to dangerously deplete surface and
groundwater supplies throughout the region--water supplies that are
already relied upon and desperately needed by others in Arizona. H.R.
1904 does not require Rio Tinto to perform any modeling or proper
studies of the impact of their project on the regional water supply and
hydrology, despite the fact that the 20 member Tribes of the Inter
Tribal Council of Arizona and other Arizona tribes and nations,
including the San Carlos Apache Tribe and the Fort McDowell Yavapai
Nation, have repeatedly requested that an independent agency of the
federal government, like the U.S. Geological Survey or other federal
agency or department, conduct such studies. This is particularly
egregious since Arizona is in its 13th year of drought and the area
water supplies in this region are under further pressure from growth.
The copper ore body is estimated at its highest point to be located
7,000 feet below the surface; however, because the actual surface at
Oak Flat and Apache Leap already sits between 4,100 feet and 4,600 feet
above sea level, the top of the massive ore body appears to be actually
located at approximately 3,000 feet below sea level. Given the depth of
the ore body throughout the 40 plus years of the mining project, Rio
Tinto will have to aggressively conduct extensive ``dewatering''
activities in order to continually pump and remove the surface water
and the groundwater from both the shallow alluvial aquifer at Oak Flat
and the deeper aquifers which will increasingly migrate into the
enormous cavity created by the removed ore and waste rock (and the
extensive tunnel system needed for the mine), nearly all of which will
be located well below the elevation of the streams in the region, and
will cut through the region's groundwater aquifers. This also means the
springs in the area that the Apaches and the Yavapai hold sacred will
be destroyed forever.
Surface water, tributary groundwater, and aquifers that are located
above, beside, and beneath the copper ore body will be impacted by
excavation to create the mining tunnels. Thus, throughout the mining
process water will constantly migrate to and from the vacant ore body
and mining tunnels. As this process continues over the decades long
life of the project, the mine will deplete billions of gallons of water
from the surface water and groundwater throughout the region, resulting
in the loss of important seeps, springs and other surface water
features, and resulting in the gross depletion, and likely
contamination, of important and unique perennial pools in Gaan
(Devil's) Canyon, flows to Queen Creek and other surface water
features, all of which is crucial to maintain the healthy ecosystem of
Oak Flat and the surrounding area, and therefore the integrity of this
place as a sacred site and traditional cultural property. Neither Rio
Tinto nor BHP Billiton have the legal right to disrupt, deplete or
contaminate this water under any law. Yet, this legislation provides
for an unprecedented water taking and condones water pollution.
Further, the alteration of both the subsurface and the surface
geological structure of this area as the result of the block caving
process and the imminent surface collapse will alter the natural state
of the aquifers and surface drainage of the watersheds throughout the
region forever. Despite the fact that legislation has been pending off
and on in Congress for almost six years, to date the Inter Tribal
Council of Arizona has never seen any meaningful studies conducted by
Rio Tinto or the federal government regarding these impacts to the
water supplies of the region. These studies are crucial to ensure that
the dwindling water supplies in Arizona are protected for communities
and cities downstream including the Phoenix metropolitan area.
The gross depletion of the local aquifers and the local springs,
seeps and other water supplies of the Oak Flat area, cannot be
remediated by ``banking'' Central Arizona Project water elsewhere,
including in storage facilities near Phoenix and in Pinal County.
Ironically, at the same time that Inter Tribal Council of Arizona
and other Indian tribes, nations and communities have raised these and
related concerns before Congress, Rio Tinto has succeeded in changing
laws and regulations in Arizona which have been in place for decades in
order to exempt itself from vital public safeguards and conditions
normally used to protect Arizona's water supplies. See, e.g., H.B.
2289, 49th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2010); H.B. 2617, 49th Leg., 2d
Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2010); S.C.R. 1046, 49th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Ariz.
2010).
We ask that Congress maintain federal ownership of these lands and
exercise its federal control necessary to ensure that the surface water
and ground water supplies of this region are protected in both quantity
and quality, and that federal, tribal, private, and public water rights
are protected in perpetuity from the interference, diminishment and
degradation presented by this massive mining project.
H.R. 1904 Requires that the Land Exchange be Consummated Without
Advanced NEPA Review
There is nothing in H.R. 1904 that calls for Congress or the USDA/
Forest Service to review the proposed land exchange itself, prior to
Rio Tinto's acquisition of the Oak Flat lands. Section 4(i) of the bill
provides that ``the land exchange directed by this Act shall be
consummated not later than one year after the date of enactment of this
Act.'' (Emphasis added). In addition, Sec. 4(a) provides that when Rio
Tinto offers to convey the non-federal lands to the United States,
``the Secretary is authorized and directed to convey to Resolution
Copper, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to
the Federal land.'' (Emphasis added).
Thus, H.R. 1904 fails to require or even permit the Secretary to
take a ``hard look'' at the land exchange itself under NEPA or other
laws, before the exchange is consummated, and seemingly fails to vest
any discretion in the Secretary of Agriculture to consider possible
alternatives to the exchange. H.R. 1904 also does not call for or
permit the mitigation of impacts related to the land exchange and it
would not permit the Secretary to avoid consummating the exchange
should the Secretary determine under the FLPMA and other laws, that the
exchange is a bad deal for the American taxpayer or the citizens or in
the event he finds that the religious, environmental, cultural, water
supply and other harms of the mining project are simply too great.
H.R. 1904 Contains Sham NEPA Requirements After the Exchange
The NEPA process outlined by Sec. 4(j) of H.R. 1904 (which is to be
conducted after the lands are exchanged) is little more than a futile
exercise on the part of the Secretary. Under H.R. 1904, the Secretary
would have no discretion to exercise any meaningful authority over Rio
Tinto's mining plan of operations or mining activities on private land
after the exchange, absent a federal nexus. There is also no
requirement in the bill for the Secretary to examine the direct,
indirect and cumulative impacts of interim exploratory activities, pre-
feasibility and feasibility operations, or mine facility construction
that will be conducted by Rio Tinto after the exchange, but before
production of commercial quantities of minerals. Sec. 4(f) mandates
that the Secretary ``shall'' provide Rio Tinto with a special use
permit within 30 days of enactment of the Act to engage in mineral
exploration activities underneath the 760-acre Oak Flat Withdrawal and,
within 90 days, the Secretary is required to allow Rio Tinto to begin
mineral explorations within the Oak Flat Withdrawal itself.
In fact, under H.R. 1904, the integrity of Oak Flat could be harmed
so substantially by exploratory activities before the limited NEPA
requirements found in Sec. 4(j)(2) are triggered, that any NEPA review
conducted upon the submission of the mining plan of operations would
have little to no benefit in any event. Similarly, the Secretary would
also seemingly lack any authority under this bill to even consider
alternatives to these interim activities, which may include
alternatives necessary to protect the integrity of Oak Flat as a
traditional cultural property and sacred site, including its water
resources, landscape, plants and ecosystems. Allowing the immediate
exploration on and under Oak Flat prior to the NEPA review contemplated
by Sec. 4(j) of the Act will constitute an ``irretrievable commitment
of resources'' in contravention to NEPA.
It is also critical to understand that under H.R. 1904, there is no
definition of ``mining plan of operations'', and there is nothing to
make clear what form the ``plan of operations'' required by Sec.
4(j)(1) of the bill would take, as this term is not tied to the
requirements of 36 C.F.R., Part 288. There no guarantees that the
``plan of operations'' will be sufficiently detailed or contain a
complete description of the type of mining to be conducted on the
lands, the subsurface information for the area, the length of
operations, or the measures that Rio Tinto will take to meet the
environmental and cultural resources protections that would normally be
required by the law if these lands were not exchanged into private
ownership. Furthermore, Rio Tinto may well change the mining plan
without public review after the initial plan is submitted that could
significantly alter the way the mine is operated. Such changes could
pose an even more serious threat to this area.
Deputy Chief of the USDA/Forest Service, Joel Holtrop, has warned
in response to prior legislation for this land exchange, that a plan of
operations which contains, in particular, subsurface information is
``essential in order to assess environmental impacts, including
hydrological conditions, subsidence, and other related issues.'' See
Deputy Chief of the USDA/Forest Service, Joel Holtrop, August 2009,
written response to questions by the Senate Subcommittee on Public
Lands and Forests on S. 409. However, H.R. 1904 would not provide the
Secretary with authority to reject the plan of operations submitted by
Rio Tinto if the information contained in the plan is insufficient to
conduct even the limited review called for under Sec. 4(j)(2) of the
bill.
The Secretary is also only given 3 years under H.R. 1904 to conduct
his review after submission of a ``mine plan of operations.'' Under
this limited time frame, the Secretary would have little time to demand
that Rio Tinto refine its plan, even if this was necessary to conduct a
meaningful review.
Indeed, USDA Secretary, Thomas Vilsack, has previously objected to
similar sham NEPA provisions contained in previous legislation for this
land exchange (S.409, 111th Congress), warning:
The purpose of a requirement [in S.409] that the agency prepare
the EIS after the exchange, when the land is in private
ownership, is unclear because the bill provides the agency with
no discretion to exercise after completing the EIS. If the
objective of the environmental analysis is to ascertain the
impacts of the potential commercial mineral production on the
parcel to be exchanged, then the analysis should be prepared
before an exchange, not afterwards, and only if the agency
retains the discretion to apply what it learns in the EIS to
its decision about the exchange. It seems completion of the
exchange prior to the EIS would negate the utility of the EIS.
(Emphasis added).
Finally, H.R. 1904 does not allow for the preparation of a
supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) document if
additional review is called for in order to examine the direct,
indirect and cumulative impacts of future activities by Rio Tinto. Sec.
4(j)(2) of the Act makes clear that the Secretary may only use the
single environmental review document which is to be prepared within 3
years of the plan of operations as the basis for all future ``decisions
under applicable Federal laws, rules and regulations regarding any
Federal actions or authorizations related to the proposed mine or plan
of operations.''
In sum, the ``NEPA'' provisions contained in H.R. 1904, do not
comply with the purposes of NEPA and they fail to vest any real
discretion in the Secretary of Agriculture to address, or even
meaningfully consider, the many concerns presented by the block cave
mining operation proposed for the Oak Flat Withdrawal area.
Rio Tinto's Promise of Significant Jobs Creation in the Local Economy
is Unsupported
Resolution Copper has circulated various economic and job figures
related to their mining project. These numbers are highly speculative
and unsupported as Rio Tinto does not have a Mining Plan of Operation
(MPO). Since an MPO may be a decade or more away from completion, it is
impossible at this time to determine with any certainly the total
number of jobs or the types of jobs that might be created by the mine.
In fact, Rio Tinto has acknowledged that exploration will take years
and will not be completed until 2020, at the earliest. This offers
little help for the needs of the local economy today. Even with the
exploration complete, there is no guarantee that Rio Tinto will build
the mine given the depth of the ore body and other factors. There is
also no guarantee that the mine will provide the large number of jobs
that Rio Tinto has promised, due to the potential automation of the
project and other factors.
Rio Tinto has recently launched a prototype of a fully automated
``mine of the future'' in the iron rich Pilbara region of Australia.
This ``mine of the future'' operates eleven mines with robotized
drilling, automated haul trucks and driverless ore trains, all of which
are controlled from an operations center 800 miles away. The aim of Rio
Tinto's prototype is to lower production costs by eliminating the need
to hire a substantial number of workers. By Rio Tinto's own admission
``some of the roles currently based at the mine [Pilbara Mine] site
will, in the future, be based in a city thousands of kilometers away
[approximately 600 or more miles away]'' and ``employees will work like
air traffic controllers.'' See ``Mine of the Future.'' riotinto.com.
Rio Tinto, n.d. Web. 2011. Rio Tinto's Eagle Ore Mine in Marquette,
Michigan also plans to use a fully automated system which may make
mines safer, but at the cost of requiring fewer workers. This reduced
labor force is a major reason why typical `mining jobs' are rapidly
declining industry-wide. As production and company profits continue to
rise (and automation becomes operational), labor statistics show that
the (mining) industry is expected to lose roughly 104,000 additional
jobs between 2008 and 2018. See U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics. Career Guide to Industry. 2010-2011 Edition.
Rio Tinto and Resolution Copper executives openly admit they plan
to implement similar automated technology at the Rio Tinto Mine in
Superior, Arizona. In Resolution Copper's 2010 Sustainable Development
Report they state, ``Rio Tinto will use, today's improved understanding
of caving processes and advanced technology will allow us to employ
more automation and mechanization than were available in the past.''
See Resolution Copper Mining. 2010 Sustainable Development Report
201
This technology would allow Rio Tinto to operate the mine from
anywhere in the world, substantially reducing the need for manpower and
skilled and unskilled workers in the Superior region. Rio Tinto boasts
that in their mines of the future (which will include the Resolution
Copper Mine): ``Humans will no longer need to be hands on as all this
equipment will be ``autonomous''--able to make decisions on what to do
based on their environment and interaction with other machines.
Operators will oversee the equipment from the ROC (Remote Operation
Centers).'' See Rio Tinto. Rio Tinto chief executive unveils vision of
``mine of the future''. 18 January 2008.
Once fully operational, the Remote Operation Center for Rio Tinto's
Resolution Copper Mine is unlikely to be located in rural Superior,
Arizona. Rather, the ROC will be ``metropolitan based'' and ``the
future miner will be required to have a higher degree of education in
mechatronics, supercomputing or artificial intelligence'', See Cribb,
Julian. Rio Tinto. Miners of the Future. Review. September 2008. This
would, of course, leave the Town of Superior in the same economic
situation it faces now. Rio Tinto's own workers acknowledge a decrease
in the need for manual labor due to automation, stating ``[p]eople
frequently ask whether we have anyone working here at all.'' Coopes,
Amy. ``Robots, space technology run Australia's mining miracle''.
Physorg.com .
Even today, Rio Tinto generally does not employ local drill
operators or drill rigs for its exploration activities, rather, it
chooses to bring in outside subcontractors from Utah, Canada and
elsewhere to work on the project. This lack of local job creation will
result in limited payroll, sale, and other tax revenue for the Town of
Superior and the State of Arizona. This in turn limits local business
growth and development, stunts housing growth and does little to infuse
money into the local economy.
Lastly, it should be noted, that if Rio Tinto does build and
operate the mine as they propose, the potential impact to the local
economy through a loss in recreation and tourism, particularly
ecotourism and heritage tourism, could be substantial, as the area of
Oak Flat and the surrounding lands of the Tonto National Forest will be
disturbed and degraded by the mine. In 2009 alone, detailed direct
travel impact estimates for Pinal County totaled $421 million dollars,
with over $16 million spent by those visiting the nearby campground
areas. See Arizona Travel Impacts 1998-2009p, July 2010 Report, Arizona
Office of Tourism, Phoenix, Arizona. Many of those dollars were spent
in and around the area of this proposed mine. Of course, in the long
run, the loss to the economy could be even greater, as the mine is
likely to deplete and contaminate billions of gallons of water from the
Superior area, potentially leaving Superior and other nearby
communities with a limited water supply, without which, any hope of
future economic development will have little chance.
The Past Environmental and Human Rights Record of Rio Tinto and BHP
Billiton Provide a Frightening Window Into the Future of
Resolution Copper
The dismal environmental track record and historical disregard for
human and labor rights practices by Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton are well
known.
Both companies' operations over the years have left a wake of
environmental destruction, human rights complaints, and lawsuits filed
worldwide. Here in the United States, the Greens Creek Mine in Alaska
(owned by Rio Tinto and two other companies) is alleged to be that
state's second largest discharger of toxic waste, releasing 59 million
pounds of toxic chemicals in one year, and violating the Clean Water
Act 391 times. In the United Kingdom, Rio Tinto's Capper Pass smelter
dropped an estimated 1.3 pounds of lead and other emissions on area
residents each week during its operation, leading to a settlement
agreement with hundreds of claimants in which the company refused to
accept blame, but provided compensation to those with cancer and other
illnesses.
On the other side of the world, current and former residents of
Papua New Guinea were compelled to file suit in United States federal
court against Rio Tinto, alleging violations of international law,
including war crimes and crimes against humanity in Rio Tinto's
operation of a large-scale mine in that country. In relation to another
mining operation in Papua New Guinea, villagers sued BHP Billiton for
more than $4 billion in damages for the destruction of the Ningerum
people's traditional lands in which they have lived since time
immemorial. BHP Billiton eventually was forced to abandon the
destructive mining project after studies showed that the operation was
causing great environmental harms, but the company is accused of
failing to oversee that the project was properly managed upon its
departure. Villagers are no longer able to safely eat locally harvested
fish or food grown from their own gardens. It is estimated that it will
take 300 years to clean up the area.
More recently, Rio Tinto locked out 570 miners from its borates
mine in Boron, California. For 107 days, the miners and their families
struggled to make ends meet without a paycheck from Rio Tinto. The
company allegedly locked out the miners in retaliation for their
refusal to agree to a contract that threatened to turn decent, family
and community-supporting jobs into part-time, temporary or contracted
jobs. Rio Tinto brought in replacement workers to do the jobs of long-
time, experienced miners, some of whom have worked at the mine and
processing plant for 30 to 40 years. It appeared that Rio Tinto was
simply using the replacement workers to help the company starve out the
locked-out families. However, after Rio Tinto got word that their
product would not be shipped out of the docks because it was ``scab''
cargo, they decided to negotiate with the miners and on May 24, 2010,
the miners returned to work.
In summary, the historical conduct of Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton
provide no assurances that these companies will keep their promise to
protect the Oak Flat area, or their employees and families, or for that
matter, to protect the environment and respect the traditional culture
and religious values of American Indians. The 20 member tribes of ITCA
strongly oppose H.R. 1904.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Featherstone.
STATEMENT OF ROGER FEATHERSTONE, DIRECTOR,
ARIZONA MINING REFORM COALITION
Mr. Featherstone. Thank you for inviting me to testify on
H.R. 1904. This legislation would benefit two foreign mining
giants, one of whom is owned in-part by China, and will have
profound negative impacts on the people of America, especially
our country's Native Americans.
The Arizona Mining Reform Coalition holds mining operations
to the highest environmental and social standards to provide
for the long-term environmental, cultural, and economic health
of Arizona.
Members of the Coalition include the Sierra Club, Earth
Works, The Concerned Citizens and Retired Miners Coalition, the
Concerned Climbers of Arizona, and other groups. Giving away
Oak Flat well before Rio Tinto has determined that a new mine
is even feasible is not a sound business deal for America.
There are many financial and environmental risks from this
land exchange. The loss of environmental freedom for Native
Americans and the loss of the historic Oak Flat Camp Ground are
incalculable.
Risks include the loss of water from the entire Oak Flat
ecosystem due to fracturing and the eventual sinking of the
surface of the proposed Black Cave mine. There is the loss of
recreational activities at Oak Flat as a world class climbing
location, and from other forms of recreation, such as hiking or
birding.
There would be negative costs to local, State, and Federal
infrastructure and services. Water used by a mine would be
unavailable for homes or farms. H.R. 1904 does not require Rio
Tinto to keep copper and other metals within the United States.
The bill could increase China's strength, while weakening
national security and the long-term competitiveness of our
country. H.R. 1904 calls for an income capitalization approach
and analysis.
This approach requires the appraiser to use a multitude of
indicators, facts, and variables that cannot be demonstrated
without a detailed mining plan. Without this information the
final appraisal of Oak Flat will ultimately be zero, and the
American taxpayer would once again be shortchanged.
The bill language forbids the Federal Government from
reopening the appraisal process. Therefore, if and when it
becomes apparent that the appraisal was too low, there would be
no opportunity for the United States to negotiate a better
deal.
This legislation mandates that the exchange be completed
within a year. One year is not enough time to complete a
mineral report, the appraisals, and its verification. Due to
automation, modern mines generate more product with fewer
workers.
When the Magma Mine shut down in 1982, 1,400 people were
laid off in a single day. When the mine reopened in 1989, 400
people were employed, and the production rates were roughly the
same. Rio Tinto talks about high levels of automation for this
mine, making it possible to control most of the operation from
anywhere in the world.
Oak Flat could be mined by a remote operating center in
Utah, just as Rio Tinto's Pilbara Mine is controlled from 800
miles away in Perth, Australia. Very little employment would
come from local hires or from workers that would move to the
local area.
Since Rio Tinto does not plan to mine for at least a
decade, there is little immediate job creation offered by this
mine, denying any economic benefits to Arizona right now. H.R.
1904 would allow Rio Tinto to begin mine construction before
completing the mining plan of operation.
Once the plan is written the NEPA review is limited to
three years. This NEPA document would be the only document
prepared to guide Federal officials regarding Federal actions
or authorizations related to the mine.
There is a process in this country that all other mining
companies use to permit large mines on public lands. A mining
company writes a mining plan of operation. The Federal Agencies
then engage the public and conduct a public review process.
This review gives everyone a chance to make the project
better and safer. However, Rio Tinto is not willing to abide by
this American process, and is going straight to Congress to
gain private foreign ownership of the land.
Rio Tinto should stick with the process that all other
mines go through. Then if it is determined that a land exchange
is necessary, a bill could be submitted to Congress. Stop,
look, and listen. Anything less is a guarantee that the
American taxpayer and their land will be damaged and
shortchanged in the process. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Featherstone follows:]
Statement of Roger Featherstone, Director,
Arizona Mining Reform Coalition
On behalf of the Arizona Mining Reform Coalition I appreciate the
opportunity to express our views about H.R. 1904, the Southeast Arizona
Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2011 (Oak Flat Land Exchange).
Several of our member groups have submitted their own written testimony
and we support and incorporate their testimony into ours.
The Arizona Mining Reform Coalition works in Arizona to improve
state and federal laws, rules, and regulations governing hard rock
mining to protect communities and the environment. We work to hold
mining operations to the highest environmental and social standards to
provide for the long-term environmental, cultural, and economic health
of Arizona. Members of the Coalition include: the Grand Canyon Chapter
of the Sierra Club, EARTHWORKS, Save the Scenic Santa Ritas, the
Dragoon Conservation Alliance, the Groundwater Awareness League,
Concerned Citizens and Retired Miners Coalition, Concerned Climbers of
Arizona, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Empire-Fagan
Coalition, Environment Arizona, and the Sky Island Alliance.
Introduction
Resolution Copper Company--a wholly foreign-owned subsidiary of Rio
Tinto and BHP-Billiton, two of the largest mining companies in the
world--is seeking to develop an underground copper mine. Rio Tinto
seeks to acquire Oak Flat, Apache Leap, and surrounding public lands
for its private use through this land exchange bill. There are many
significant problems posed by this unusual bill. For example, if
approved, 2,406 acres of the Tonto National Forest will become private
property and will forever be off limits to recreationists and all those
who enjoy public lands. Privatization of this land would end public
access to some of the most spectacular outdoor recreation and wildlife
viewing areas in Arizona. If a mine is developed, this land would be
affected by massive surface collapse subsidence, leaving far-reaching
and permanent scars on the landscape, among other ongoing harms to this
entire area.
Similar versions of this bill have been introduced in Congress
since 2005. None of these previous bills have been approved by either
chamber of Congress. Previous Congresses have recognized that this
exchange is simply not in the best interest of the American public.
The Oak Flat Campground was recognized by the Eisenhower
Administration as an important recreational resource in 1955 under
Public Land Order 1229, as amended, and 760 acres of Oak Flat were
specifically placed off limits to future mining activity. This unique
area is a world-class natural resource for birding, hunting, hiking,
camping, rock climbing, bouldering, canyoneering, picnicking,
responsible off-highway vehicle driving, and other recreational uses.
Oak Flat receives tens of thousands of visitors each year who enjoy the
peace and beauty of this landscape, while at the same time infusing
needed tourist dollars into the surrounding area of Superior and Globe.
Gaan (known also as Devil's) Canyon and the waters of Queen Creek
border the Oak Flat area. These important surface waters represent two
of the crown jewels of Arizona's state trust lands, with some of the
finest remaining riparian habitat in the state.
The Oak Flat Campground, Apache Leap, and the surrounding area are
also very important for recreation, and shade from the large Oak trees
at Oak Flat and the fantastic scenery have long served as a respite to
the citizens of the town of Superior and those who travel along nearby
Highway 60. Many Superior residents oppose the Oak Flat Land Exchange.
Oak Flat, Apache Leap, Gaan Canyon, and the surrounding area are also
important religious sites for Western Apaches and Yavapais, including
the San Carlos Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, and the
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation. The religious and traditional use of Oak
Flat by Native Americans continues to this day. The Tonto National
Forest has ``discovered'' at least a dozen archeological sites in and
around Oak Flat. Making Oak Flat private land would forever eliminate
these traditional cultural and religious uses of that unique area and
the destruction of this area by the mining project would eliminate any
meaningful access that Native Americans have to this important place.
According to well known lore from the area, Apache Leap is an
historical land known as the Apache's Masada. It is hallowed grounds
where many dozens of Apaches leaped to their deaths when trapped by the
U.S. Army.
H.R. 1904 is wholly inadequate to protect the important values of
this unique landscape. In fact, the bill contains no provisions for
meaningful environmental or cultural review or public input.
Furthermore, Rio Tinto would not even be required to file a mining plan
for years and it has offered scant and often conflicting information
about (1) what will become of Oak Flat, Apache Leap, Gaan Canyon and
the surrounding environs; (2) where the massive amount of mining
tailings will ultimately reside; (3) where it will obtain the enormous
amounts of water needed for mining or what will have to be dewatered
for the mining activity to be maintained deep below the Earth; (4) how
endangered species such as the Arizona hedgehog cactus, (echinocereus
triglochidiatus arizonicus) and Sonoran ocelot, (Leopardus pardalis
sonoriensis) will be protected and preserved; and (5) how necessary
religious and cultural resources will be protected. Importantly, the
bill makes no mention of the surface collapse of the area which is
certain to occur if Rio Tinto is allowed to mine this area as it
intends. Much has yet to be addressed regarding environmental
considerations.
This bill is at best premature. Before an informed decision can be
made on the merits of any land exchange for mining purposes, the public
must review and debate a plan of operation for an actual mine. Only if,
after full review of a plan of operations and alternatives, a decision
is made to move forward with a mine, should a potential land exchange
be considered, if at all.
For this, and other reasons listed below, we oppose H.R. 1904 in
its current form.
Economic and Other Risks
It is well known that mining companies do not pay royalties on
mined federal properties thereby significantly fleecing the American
taxpayer. However, under the terms of the legislative land exchange
proposed in H.R. 1904, (which would cede control of what may be one of
the larger copper deposits in North America to foreign interests), very
few of the financial benefits touted by the mining company would be
realized by the American public. Giving away Oak Flat to Rio Tinto at
this stage, well before Rio Tinto has even determined that a new mine
at Oak Flat is even feasible, is not a sound business decision and is
unfair not only to the taxpayers, but to the tribes and recreational
users who depend on this area. Rio Tinto's own literature stresses that
a mine at Oak Flat would be technologically challenging and that
further assessment is needed before the company decides to fully commit
to building a mine. Indeed, Rio Tinto is presently only in the pre-
feasibility phase of exploration of this area, and feasibility studies
are not yet scheduled to commence until at least 2013 or 2014.
There are considerable financial and environmental risks and losses
for the American people if the land exchange is to be approved and that
must be examined before a determination can be made regarding whether
or not this land exchange is in the public interest. There is the loss
of religious freedom for Native Americans, the loss of unique public
lands for the American public, and the loss of the treasured Oak Flat
Campground to the citizens of Superior and others that are
incalculable. Risks include the potential loss of the entire Gaan
Canyon ecosystem due to drawdown of the water table or the collapse of
portions of the Oak Flat area and Apache Leap due to stress fracturing
and the eventual sinking of the surface from the proposed block cave
mine. With the death of a young wild-born endangered ocelot right next
to Oak Flat, we now have possible evidence of endangered mammals that
would be affected by the land exchange and a new mine. This risk of
loss before we even know the extent of ocelot use and occupancy of Oak
Flat is also incalculable. The loss to other unique animals found at
Oak Flat due to the mine should also not be treated lightly. Oak Flat
is home to a diversity of unique and valuable wildlife. (See Jacobs &
Flesch, '''Vegetation and Wildlife Survey of Devil's Canyon. Tonto
National Forest'' (2007); Jacobs, Vegetation and Wildlife Survey of
Devil's Canyon, Tonto National Forest'' (2009)). The Oak Flat area also
contains nesting and wintering habitat for a number of birds listed on
the United States WatchList--a joint project between the American Bird
Conservancy and the National Audubon Society.
There are also costs that are difficult, but not impossible to
calculate. For example there is some estimate on the economic value of
the loss of recreational opportunities at Oak Flat as a world class
climbing location, but there are less data on the economic loss from
other forms of recreation such as hiking or birding. A recent report on
the economic value to Arizona from human-powered recreation (birding,
climbing, hiking, etc.) shows that human-powered recreation in Arizona
provides more than 86,000 annual jobs and provides 12 percent of
Arizona's retail economy. It also shows that more than 1 out of 4
Arizonans climb, hike or canyoneer. It would be difficult, but we could
also calculate the value of water lost for other uses by a new mine at
Oak Flat and could calculate the cost to Arizona to clean up after Rio
Tinto if the company leaves behind a mess as has happened with numerous
other mines.
It is certain that a new mine at Oak Flat would cause environmental
damage. There also would be additional negative costs from a mining
operation to the local, state, and federal infrastructure (roads,
utilities, bridges) and services (fire, police, schools and
healthcare). These costs could more easily be calculated if there was a
mining plan of operation that could be used to help those who will be
most directly impacted by this exchange and massive mining project (and
you the decision-makers) in deciding whether this land exchange is
truly in the public interest.
Given the current economic conditions the state of Arizona is
facing, the sponsors of H.R. 1904 are characterizing this legislation
as an economic development bill. In reality, too many unsubstantiated
facts and unanswered questions remain regarding the overall economic
feasibility and benefit of this exchange to the American taxpayer. For
example, Resolution Copper, while a joint venture of foreign mining
giants, is registered as a Delaware based Limited Liability Company
(LLC). Notably, nine percent of Rio Tinto is owned by the state-
controlled Aluminum Corporation of China, also known as Chinalco. As
past events have shown, Rio Tinto is very willing to do business with
China and it is very likely that China's share in any mine at Oak Flat
would increase. Indeed, in recent years, China has attempted to double
its interest in Rio Tinto, just as it has purchased other mining
interests across the world for its purposes. In essence, approving this
land exchange would give China a stake in land now owned by the
American public--lands that were once within the exclusive occupation
of Western Apache and Yavapai people, and which remain central to their
religion and culture today.
While press releases and other statements issued upon the
introduction of H.R. 1904 imply that the copper and other metal
resources purportedly found below Oak Flat will be sold to and used by
the United States, in fact, there is nothing in H.R. 1904 that would
actually require Rio Tinto to sell these resources to the United
States. Indeed, it must be reasonably assumed the copper and other
important metals that could come from a mine at Oak Flat would not stay
in the United States and be used to create U.S. manufacturing jobs and
further, that most of the profits of a mine at Oak Flat would be
shipped off-shore and not held within the United States based on these
companies mining operations, holdings, and performance.
While China (and other developing nations) are stockpiling copper
and other important resources, Congress would, through H.R. 1904, turn
over exclusive control and ownership of purportedly one of the larger
copper ore deposits in North America to the foreign owned companies of
Rio Tinto (owned in part by China) and BHP Billiton. In doing so, it
would seem that Congress would be increasing China's strength, while
weakening the national security of the United States. Undermining the
long-term competitiveness of U.S. companies has obvious adverse impacts
on the United States' economy and job growth potential.
In December of 2009, the United States government nixed a plan for
China to invest in a Nevada mining operation on the grounds of national
security. One would think that Congress would pause and examine with
great interest this land exchange for similar reasons.
Appraisal and Royalty
H.R. 1904 calls for an appraisal report that would include an
income capitalization approach analysis, in accordance with the Uniform
Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisition (UASFLA), of the
market value of the federal land. Since much of the information needed
to accurately appraise value of the public land in question at Oak Flat
by using the income capitalization approach could only be obtained by
preparing a detailed mining plan of operation and other supporting
information, mandating that this appraisal method before a mining plan
is written basically assures that the land exchange would be a taxpayer
rip-off and not in the best interest of the American people.
The income capitalization approach often requires the appraiser to
use a multitude of indicators, facts, and variables, the accuracy of
which cannot clearly and easily be demonstrated by direct market data
[See Foster v. United States, 2 Cl. Ct. 426 (1983)]. This is
particularly true when discounted cash flow analysis or other forms of
yield capitalization are employed in the analysis. Furthermore, within
the UASFLA there are several specific requirements to assess values,
including the need for a detailed mining plan for the property, which
according to the bill would not be available until long after the
appraisal is complete and the land exchange consummated. UASFLA
requires that production-level estimates should be supported by
documentation regarding production levels achieved in similar
operations. Again, without a comprehensive mining plan at the time of
the appraisal, it would be difficult, if not impossible for an
appraiser to determine which other operation could be used for
comparison. The annual amount of production and the number of years of
production are more difficult (and speculative) to estimate, and
require at a minimum, not only physical tests of the property to
determine the quantity and quality of the mineral present, but also
market studies to determine the volume and duration of the demand for
the mineral in the subject property. However, it is unknown at this
time what the true production estimates are as specific mining plan
details have not been forthcoming from Rio Tinto. In addition, the true
quality or quantity of the material is unknown and the extraction
technology for this mining operation at a 7000-foot depth has not been
developed and thus not currently available. This fact is further
underscored by the lack of available information on production levels
being consistent with a mining plan's labor and equipment.
In further examining UASFLA, the income capitalization approach
also requires several economic predictions including a cash-flow
projection of incomes and expenses over the life-span of the project
and a determination of the Net Present Value (NPV), including the NPV
of the profit stream, based on a discount factor. The NPV of a future
income is always lower than its current value because an income in the
future assumes risk. The actual discount factor used depends on this
assumed risk. A proven technology carries a lower risk of non-
performance, and thus, a lower discount rate, than a technology being
applied for the first time.
Given the evaluation standards prescribed by the UASFLA, coupled
with the lack of factual data and uncertainty of the technology
described above, the final appraisal of this massive ore body could
ultimately net zero, meaning that the valuation of the federal lands
exchanged for the benefit of RCC would not reflect the value of the
copper and other saleable minerals these lands contain. The American
taxpayer would once again be short-changed.
To compound the problem, the bill language forbids the federal
government from reopening the appraisal process. Therefore, if and when
it becomes apparent that the appraisal was too low, there would be no
opportunity for the United States to negotiate a better deal for the
taxpayer.
Rio Tinto must be required to provide additional information and
pay for additional research in order to generate an appraisal that is
fair and equitable to the people of the United States, and any such
appraisal should occur after the technology exists to mine this
particular ore body and a plan of operations has been created.
Moreover, since the federal government has yet to perform a
substantive economic evaluation of the lands along with the copper and
other minerals to be exchanged to RCC, it is also impossible for the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and/or Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) to effectively evaluate H.R. 1904. The public interest
requires that a complete and fully informed appraisal and equalization
of values be performed prior to Congressional passage of H.R. 1904. Rio
Tinto has asserted that there may be over 1.34 billion tons, containing
1.51 percent copper and 0.040 percent molybdenum to be removed over the
66 years of the mine's life. Although the current value of all minerals
present on these federal lands is not provided by Rio Tinto, estimates
have ranged from $100 to $200 billion. Thus, even the company's own
self evaluation of the ore body underlying these public lands is orders
of magnitude greater in value than that of the non-federal parcels
offered in exchange to the public.
Section 4(i) of the legislation requires that the exchange and
other critical documentation be completed within one year after
congressional passage. Given the rationalizations above regarding the
complexity of such analysis, it is incredulous that one year is
sufficient time for the completion, and subsequent thorough examination
and review of all reports and appraisals. Indeed, Michael Nedd, then
Assistant Director of Minerals and Realty Management for the Bureau of
Land Management, stated in his previous testimony on this matter that
he and the BLM did not believe a one year provision was sufficient time
for the completion and review of a mineral report, completion and
review of the appraisals, and final verification and preparation of
title documents. Yet, the sponsors of this bill have chosen not to heed
the government's own experts' advice and counsel on mineral appraisals.
Once Rio Tinto has completed its evaluation and analysis, we urge
Congress to require an independent, third party review of all the
reports, including the engineering report, for this operation. This
must be accomplished in consultation with all affected parties prior to
this legislation moving forward. At this time, relying on Rio Tinto's
current information and other reports or the Departments of Agriculture
and Interior review of these reports is insufficient. Only a third
party certification can help assure that the taxpayers get a fair
return on the minerals they are giving up in this land exchange.
In examining the royalty provisions found in H.R. 1904, which are
based on the same faulty assumption made in Section 4 of the bill, it
is highly likely that trading these federal lands into RCC's private
ownership will result in unquantifiable, inequitable, and effectively
zero royalties being provided to the United States taxpayer.
Job Claims
Since the first Oak Flat land exchange bill was introduced by
former Congressman Rick Renzi, proponents of the land exchange have
substantially inflated the number of jobs they claim a mine would
provide. In March 2005, newspaper articles appearing in the Arizona
Republic and the Tucson Citizen reported that the mine would create 450
jobs. Today Rio Tinto's job number claims range from 1,200 to 6,000.
However without a detailed Mining Plan of Operations, estimates on the
number of jobs that would be created by a mine at Oak Flat are pure
speculation.
While Augusta Resource Corporation commissioned a report that was
widely optimistic about jobs and economic growth in southern Arizona
from a proposed copper mine south of Tucson, Arizona, this report has
been heavily criticized for inflating the number of indirect jobs
created, at least Augusta's analysis was based on a real mining plan of
operation. Here, Congress and the American public are being asked to
take, essentially at face value, an economic and job forecast done in
part by some of the same institutions that did the Augusta report,
without the benefit of a mining plan. One has to question the
credibility of job claims that have ranged so widely.
Trends in the mining industry are very clear. Modern mines generate
more product with fewer workers. For years, mining companies have
relied on the increased use of technology to cut labor costs. For
example, when the Magma Mine shut down in 1982, 1,400 people were laid
off in a single day. When the mine reopened in 1989, 400 people were
employed and the production rates were as much or more as when the mine
shut down in 1982. (Of this new labor force, less than 100 of these
employees resided in Superior and the economic benefit to the community
at that time was minimal.)
The following graph shows downward trends in mining employment in
Arizona while production levels remain high.
.epsRio Tinto has been talking about high levels of automation for
this mine. Rio Tinto and its partner at Oak Flat, BHP Billiton, have
been pioneers in the production of automated trucks, driverless trains
and other automation features. Rio Tinto just announced the addition of
an additional 10 driverless trucks at its highly automated iron mines
in the Pilbara region of Australia. Starting next year, for the first
time, Rio Tinto's driverless trucks will be hauling ore in addition to
waste.
Much of the operations of the Pilbara mines are controlled from the
city of Perth, 800 miles away. This level of automation is increasingly
common and is intended to cut costs along with the number of workers
needed for mining activities. Based on current technology it would be
possible to control most of the operation of a mine at Oak Flat from
anywhere in the world. In fact, much of Rio Tinto's mining and
Resolution Copper's business addresses for tax records are based in
Utah. It is not unlikely that this mine could easily be controlled by a
remote operating center in Utah, just as the Pilbara mine is controlled
from 800 miles away in Perth, Australia. If the U.S. military can
control drone aircraft operating in Afghanistan from Nevada, it is not
unlikely that a mine at Oak Flat could be controlled from Utah or even
Perth.
The workforce of a modern mine has also changed dramatically. When
the Magma Mine closed in 1982, the town of Superior had 6,300
residents. By the time the mine had reopened in 1989, the town's
population had dropped to 3,200, and only 100 of the mine's workers
lived in Superior. If a mine was to open at Oak Flat, according to
current trends and given the educational requirements for this
automated mine, it is probable that even those workers who worked on
site would live in Phoenix or its suburbs and commute to Superior
rather than live there and add to the town's economic prosperity. One
only needs look at the license plates of the trucks parked at the
drilling rigs or at the Rio Tinto office in Superior. Many are from
Utah, Mexico or other places rather than from Arizona. Since modern
mines require highly skilled operators, there is a small labor pool
that travels from mine to mine to work but never settles permanently
near the mine.
What all of this means is that there would be increased employment
if a mine is built at Oak Flat, but very little of that employment
would come from local hires or from workers that would resettle in the
local area. The extensive equipment needs of a mine would also not be
manufactured locally, as it is more likely that this equipment would be
made overseas as is most new equipment used in modern mines.
Lastly, when it comes to the issue of jobs, since Rio Tinto's plans
call for it to be at least a decade before a mine is built, there is
simply no immediate job creation offered by this mine, making any
enhancement to the immediate local needs of Arizona minimal at best.
Some have said that the opening of a mine at Oak Flat would lead to
a revitalization of the town of Superior. However, while Rio Tinto has
employed 100--200 people for the past half dozen years for exploration,
shaft sinking, and other duties, the population of Superior has dropped
another 400 people according to the latest census data. There is no
reason to believe this trend would change as a result of the land
exchange and mining project to be facilitated by H.R. 1904.
Environmental Review
A previous version of the land exchange gave the Secretary of
Agriculture the power to determine whether the land exchange was in the
public interest and in the case that the Secretary found it was not,
the Secretary was able to stop the exchange. That provision is entirely
missing in this bill. H.R. 1904 leaves the sole decision-making
authority for approving the land exchange in the hands of Congress
without providing for, as detailed above, the plans and studies to show
that the exchange is in the public interest, and that the American
taxpayer is getting a full return on the sale of precious public
assets.
The bill mentions the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) but
then takes the teeth out of the federal decision-making process. The
language states that prior to commencement of mining in commercial
quantities, Rio Tinto must submit a mining plan of operation to the
Secretary of Agriculture and that the Secretary must complete a NEPA
review of this plan within three years. It does not say what this
mining plan should include nor does it mention what the Secretary can
do if the plan is inadequate or incomplete. It says that this NEPA
document would be the only document prepared to guide federal officials
regarding federal actions or authorizations related to the mine. Never
mind that NEPA is a law meant to give federal land managers a chance to
``look before they leap'' and that this exercise in futility would
already have a mandated outcome. Never mind that the plan would not
have to be written until the mine was already built, and never mind
that the land in question would be private property, so there may never
be a federal nexus that would trigger NEPA. It is unlikely that the
U.S.D.A. Forest Service could do a full NEPA analysis in three years,
even if Rio Tinto was 100 percent cooperative with them. Rio Tinto's
current plan, which has changed many times and probably will continue
to change, eliminates any federal nexus if the land exchange is
enacted. In that case, the federal government would have spent three
years and a lot of taxpayer money to write a meaningless document that
would never be taken off the shelf and used.
Previous information released by Rio Tinto led the public to
believe that the company was planning on storing the mountain of waste
a mine would generate and doing most of the milling at the nearby Pinto
Valley Mine owned by BHP Billiton. In fact, one of the purposes of the
pre-feasibility exploratory drilling that was recently approved was to
allow Rio Tinto to conduct testing to see where a tunnel to the Pinto
Valley Mine could be placed. However, new information is pointing to a
Rio Tinto plan to move ore and waste from their proposed mine out under
Apache Leap through an existing tunnel, and perhaps new tunnels,
through the town of Superior and then disposing of the tailings to the
west near the proposed Superstition Vistas housing development. Should
that be Rio Tinto's plan, it would eliminate any federal nexus from the
project since the company already owns the necessary rights-of-way
through National Forest public lands. Again however, until a mining
plan of operations is written, no one except perhaps Rio Tinto knows
for sure what it is planning and the company isn't talking.
If the land exchange is passed and consummated, State of Arizona
mining laws would apply. Arizona has the weakest state mining laws in
the country. Not only would the state permitting process make it much
more likely that a bad mine design be approved, but state rules leave
enforcement of its laws up to the companies themselves. In addition, a
critical component of any mining plan is the closure plan. A good mine
design plans for closure from day one. However, the Arizona process
does not require a mining company to submit a closure plan for review
until no less than five years before closure is contemplated. This not
only flies in the face of good mine design, but severely hampers both
the company and the state from closing the mine in an environmentally
responsible manner.
A key feature of any good mining permit is adequate bonding to
insure that if something goes wrong or a company goes bankrupt before
reclamation is complete, there is enough money in hand to fully close,
remediate and protect the public at the company's--not taxpayers'--
expense. However, Arizona allows mining companies to self-insure their
bonds by using a corporate guarantee. This works only if a company is
solvent and intending to stay in the state, but Resolution Copper, the
wholly owned subsidiary of Rio Tinto and BHP, is chartered as a limited
liability corporation in the state of Delaware. If something went wrong
with a mine at Oak Flat, the parent companies could strip Resolution
Copper of all its assets, similar to what Grupo Mexico did with ASARCO
a few years ago. If that happens, the state of Arizona would be
responsible for picking up the pieces and the burden would surely fall
on the taxpayer. Federal bonding provisions, on the other hand, require
cash or other liquid security to be held by the federal government to
better assure that the taxpayer is not liable if a company skips out on
its obligations.
This lack of good and enforceable state laws is another factor that
must be considered in weighing whether this land exchange is in the
public interest.
Water
A block cave mine such as the one Rio Tinto has been talking about
would use in the neighborhood of 40,000 acre-feet of water per year.
That amount is roughly equivalent to the amount of water used by the
city of Tempe (160,000 people). Rio Tinto has no water rights necessary
to develop and operate the mine being proposed or to process ore. Rio
Tinto has been less then transparent in telling the public where it
intends to secure the water necessary to operate its mine. Water is in
short supply in all of Arizona and due to the increasing pressure from
housing; BHP has received approval for the construction of 35,000 homes
on its private lands near the San Pedro River just above the Seven B
Ranch that is part of this proposed land exchange. Those homes could us
as much as 20,000 acre-feet of water per year. This would not only
dewater the Seven B Ranch and put additional pressure on the San Pedro
River, but also take that amount of water out of the regional pool that
Rio Tinto would also try to draw from should they build a mine at Oak
Flat. In addition, the Superstition Vistas proposed development west of
Oak Flat would also use enormous quantities of water. Superior and Oak
Flat are also at the headwaters of much of the Phoenix water supply.
The Carlota Mine is also pumping large amounts of groundwater. Putting
all of this in context, the region is facing a serious water shortage
without a new mine at Oak Flat. Building a mine that uses the amount of
water as the city of Tempe would create serious water shortages. The
federal mine permitting process would expose and examine these water
problems. However, H.R. 1904 would bypass that process and give away
Oak Flat to Rio Tinto before an examination of water quantity problems
could be undertaken and the cumulative impacts analyzed.
So where will Rio Tinto get this water? (Note, in Arizona, there
are very few laws regulating groundwater pumping by mining companies.)
Historically, mines just drill wells that are deeper than their
surrounding neighbors' wells. Such deep water wells dry up neighboring
wells, de-water surface waters and impact the entire region's water
needs. As the members of this Subcommittee are aware, water is a
critical resource in the State of Arizona. Rio Tinto has previously
``banked'' water from the Central Arizona Project (CAP), but with
looming shortages of water in the Colorado River basin, that water
cannot be counted on. Only a complete NEPA review before the decision
on whether to proceed with the land exchange is made will provide
answers to the critical issues surrounding Central Eastern Arizona's
water resources and needs in the area of the proposed Resolution Copper
Mine.
Mines pollute groundwater and surface water even when they predict
they will not. Acid and heavy metal mine drainage leaking into
groundwater and surface waters are a common result of copper mining.
Mines pollute surface water and groundwater with toxins and
carcinogens, requiring more expensive surface reclamation and long-term
water treatment. Rio Tinto is dewatering an old mining shaft that has
flooded. The water in that shaft is contaminated and loaded with heavy
metals. In order for that treated water to be reclaimed and be re-used,
it has to be diluted with 10 parts of CAP water to each part of treated
water prior to being transported to the New Magma Irrigation District
for use on crops.
Gaan Canyon is located in the Tonto National Forest and on State
Trust Lands near the proposed mine, just northeast of the town of
Superior. It flows into Mineral Creek, which is a tributary of the Gila
River. Gaan Canyon provides important and all too rare riparian habitat
in a state where much of our riparian habitat has been degraded or
destroyed--most estimates indicate that more than 90 percent has been
lost to water diversions, groundwater pumping, and other activities.
Gaan Canyon is an area enjoyed by hikers and climbers and those seeking
some relief from the heat. Sycamores and Arizona alders thrive on Gaan
Canyon's water and also provide valuable habitat for wildlife.
Considering its proximity to the proposed mine, the depth of the mine
and the associated water pumping that will occur to dewater it, the
risks of dewatering Gaan Canyon are significant.
Subsidence
Rio Tinto wants to mine at Oak Flat using a method of underground
mining called block cave mining. Block cave mining is cheaper and
perhaps more efficient than other forms of underground mining, but
every block cave mine built has caused the surface above the mine to
sink and has caused fracturing of the surface and subsurface rock above
the mine.
The fracturing of the rock above the mine causes a cone of
depression that transports water from the surface down into the mined
area. Gaan Canyon, Oak Flat and the surrounding area are watered by a
shallow aquifer, which thus far has been largely separated from deeper
aquifers. However, block caving would fracture the rock protecting the
surface aquifer. That would cause the surface water to drain through
the fractures well before the surface sinks due to subsidence. If and
when this happens, Gaan Canyon would dry up, the oaks would die and the
ecosystem would be severely impacted. Once cracking near the surface
occurs from the effects of block caving, there is no turning back.
Again, there are no provisions in this bill to study the impacts of
subsidence before the land exchange was consummated.
Protection of Apache Leap
While there is language in the land exchange that would seem to
protect Apache Leap, there are loopholes in the bill that allow Rio
Tinto to do work under Apache Leap so long as it does not commercially
extract ore from under the Leap. This allows the company full access to
existing tunnels that now exist under Apache Leap. Should the company
decide to move ore through Superior to the west, the company would have
free rein not only to use its existing tunnels but to drill new ones as
long as it does not commercially extract minerals. Not only is the bill
language weak on assuring that block caving does not impact Apache Leap
from the east, but this loophole would also allow Rio Tinto to
undermine Apache Leap.
Oak Flat Campground
Removing President Eisenhower's Executive Order withdrawing Oak
Flat from hard rock mining, as this bill would do, is no small detail.
Not only is Oak Flat Campground an important parcel of public land for
the myriad of reasons outlined above, not the least of which is
religious freedom, but it is an important part of President
Eisenhower's legacy. The Congress would be giving that legacy to two
foreign mining companies. Another part of Eisenhower's legacy is the
interstate highway system. Giving away Oak Flat is akin to giving away
portions of I-10 in Arizona in the hope those foreign interests would
somehow feel benevolent and use the interstate for the public good. The
only sure way to protect the public values and prosperity that Oak Flat
now provides is to keep it as it is: an oasis of green in a sea of
mined lands free and open for all Americans and our visitors to enjoy.
How the Mine Permitting Process Is Supposed to Work
There is a process in this country that all other mining companies,
including Rio Tinto and BHP, use to permit large mines on public lands.
This process is to fully explore a mining prospect and determine
whether it is economically, environmentally, and socially feasible.
Once that decision is made, a mining company writes a detailed mining
plan of operation and submits it to whichever federal agency manages
the public land for which it would like permission to use (usually
either the Forest Service or the BLM). The federal agency, using the
provisions laid out in NEPA, engages the public and other agencies and
decision-makers, and conducts a public review process that involves
both a draft and a final environmental impact statement. This review
gives the public, the mining company, and government agencies a chance
to make the project better and safer. Once this process is complete,
the federal agencies almost always grant the mining company a permit to
mine after requiring adequate liquid bonding to ensure that everything
will go according to plan. Often, the permit will mandate mitigation
measures that also are designed to make the mine design better and
safer. If the mining company wants to make major changes to the mine
design or new information comes to light, there are provisions to
reopen the review process, again to make the mine better and safer.
However, in this case, Rio Tinto is not willing to abide by this
American process, and is going straight to Congress to gain private,
foreign ownership of the land and bypass this process.
Conclusion
This special interest legislation, which would benefit two foreign
mining companies at the expense of the American public, is not needed.
Rio Tinto should stick with the process all other mines go through and
write its mining plan of operation first. Then, if it is determined
that a land exchange is necessary and the exchange needs to be done by
federal legislation, a bill can be submitted and debated in Congress.
Anything less is a guarantee that the American taxpayer and their land
will be damaged and shortchanged in the process.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Chairman Talgo.
STATEMENT OF HARRISON TALGO, FORMER CHAIRMAN,
SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE
Mr. Talgo. Before I do my formal testimony, I would like to
introduce my wife, and the people who came with me here from
San Carlos. It is Apache custom to know where you are from,
where you come from, and to introduce yourself in the gathering
of such.
My ancestral clan, Hohokam, inhabited the Roosevelt Tonto
Basin. They inhabited the Pinal Mountains, which exist today,
where many mining operations are operating in Arizona. This is
where the proposed site is that is being presented here today.
My father's clan, Hohokam, is a slender tall people,
descended from the Aravaipa Canyon, Chief Espinsin. I am a
cousin to Ola Casador. My wife here is a descendent, and she is
of the White Water people. She is a descendent from a famous
Apache scout named John Roe.
He was the interpreter during the treaty establishment of
our reservation. She was born to Estaha Arat, the Northern
Ridge people. Also with me is Elias Miles, who represents the
next generation, with his mother, who is Cheryl, an educator
from San Carlos.
Now for my formal testimony. Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Subcommittee, my name is Harrison Talgo, Senior, and I am a
Member of the San Carlos Apache Nation. I am a former tribal
chairman, and I have served as a member of the San Carlos
Apache Tribe Council for 16 years.
Today is the National Flag Day, and I am proud to say that
I am a veteran of the Marine Corps, and served my country with
honor and duty in Vietnam. I am also a tribal elder. As tribal
chairman, I established the Tribal Elderly Council, a currently
successful program.
Many times I have come before Congress as an official
representative of my government to present issues affecting in
the best interests of the San Carlos Tribal Government. But
today I come before you as a concerned private citizen of
Bylas, Arizona.
I am here to vote and voice my support of H.R. 1904. My
wife, Eloise, and I raised seven children on the reservation. I
understand the Apache way, and I am respectful of the
traditions of my ancestors.
I know that the tribal leadership does not share my
position. I have tried very hard to understand why they oppose
this project when we are in such desperate need of jobs and
industry.
We are one of the poorest Indian tribes in the Nation.
Seven of ten eligible workers in the tribe are unemployed, and
I am one of them. Almost 80 percent of our people live in
poverty.
Alcoholism, drugs, are rampant and our suicide rates are
high. The average Apache male lives 54 years, about 20 years
fewer than the average American male. Without jobs our children
are forced to move to neighboring communities, or into cities
to find work.
Not many of them return, and with each passing generation a
piece of apache identity and culture is lost. I can tell you as
a father and a grandfather, and one who grew up in the
traditional ways, and learned the language of my fathers, that
is heartbreaking.
Even though our newest reservation boundary is about 20
miles away from the Resolution project, and our nearest
community is about 40 miles away from the highway, that is a
reasonable distance to travel for a job, especially when you
consider the high wages and the benefits that the mining jobs
provide.
Many Apaches worked at the former Magma Mine that is the
base area of the new mine. The issue today is not about our
reservation land, our sovereignty, our heritage, our self-
respect. These are not for sale.
This is about putting my people, a lot of people, to work.
I believe economic development should be our leadership's top
priority. I have previously testified before Congress in
support of economic projects. I have done so in the face of
oppositions from other leaders who have opposed these same
opportunities on or near the reservation.
Some of those projects experienced costly delays as such
results of the council's opposition, but they were all built
eventually, and they have all hired Apaches. I respect and
support the tribal council's desire to protect sites that have
cultural and historical significance.
But Oak Flat is a long way from us, and I believe strongly
that it is possible for our traditional values to coexist with
economic progress. In fact, I don't believe that one can
survive without the other. Economic progress and prosperity
leads to a better standard of living, better health, better
service, better education.
In increases our capacity to learn and expand our cultural
horizons. It gives us additional resources to explore and study
our past to protect what we should hold sacred, and to showcase
and display those things that are culturally important, and to
help the outside world to better understand and appreciate the
stories, and the traditions of our fathers, because many
members of the San Carlos Apache----
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Chairman, I am going to have to ask you to
summarize.
Mr. Talgo.--rely on the Tribal Government for assistance.
They often do not speak out against Council's decisions in fear
of losing their benefits. I am not afraid to speak out. I can
assure you that I do not stand alone as a Member of the San
Carlos Apache Nation in supporting the Resolution Copper Mine.
I made personal phone calls to as many as 2,000 people, and
a majority of them responded in favor. I respectfully urge the
Congress to pass this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I
welcome any questions that you and the Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Talgo follows:]
Statement of Harrison Talgo, Member, San Carlos Apache Nation
and resident of Bylas, on H.R. 1904
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
My name is Harrison Talgo. I am a member of the San Carlos Apache
Nation. I am a former Tribal chairman, and I served as a member of the
San Carlos Apache Tribal Council for 16 years. This is National Flag
Day and I am proud to say I am a veteran of the Marine Corps and served
my country with honor and duty in Vietnam. I am also a Tribal Elder.
Many times I have come before Congress as an official
representative of my government to present issues affecting and in the
best interest of the San Carlos Apache Tribal Government. But today, I
come before you as a concerned private citizen of Bylas.
I am here to voice my support of HR.1904.
My ancestoral clan inhabited the Pinal Mountains in Arizona, the
same region where many mining operations exist today and not far from
the mining project proposed by Resolution Copper. My wife Elouise and I
raised 7 children on the reservation. I understand the Apache way and
am respectful of the traditions of my ancestors. They were proud and
independent people.
I know the tribal leadership does not share my position. I have
tried very hard to understand why they oppose this project when we are
in such desperate need of jobs and industry. I believe that traditional
Apache values are not mutually exclusive with economic development.
We are one of the poorest Indian tribes in the nation. Seven in ten
eligible workers in the tribe are unemployed. Almost 80 percent of our
people live in poverty. Alcoholism and drug use are rampant and suicide
rates are high. The average Apache male has a life expectancy of 54
years, about 20 years shorter than the average American male.
Obviously, this places a tremendous strain on personal and family
relationships and a heavy burden on social services--services the tribe
struggles to provide.
Without jobs, our children are forced to move to neighboring
communities or into the city to find work. Not many of them return.
With each passing generation, a piece of Apache identity and culture is
lost. I can tell you as a father and grandfather and one who grew up in
traditional ways and learned the language of my fathers, that is
heartbreaking.
Those who stay on the reservation face a bleak future. Only
education and training and opportunities for good-paying jobs can
improve that picture.
Even though our nearest reservation boundary is about 20 miles away
from the Resolution project and our nearest community is almost 40
miles away by highway, that is a reasonable distance to travel for a
job, especially when you consider the high wages and benefits that
mining jobs provide. There also are opportunities for San Carlos
residents to start businesses much closer to home that will supply and
service a large mining operation like Resolution Copper. In discussions
with Resolution, I have discovered the company is ready and willing to
discuss these kinds of opportunities with San Carlos. Many Apaches
worked at the former Magma Mine that is the base area for this new
mine.
The issue today is not about our reservation land, our sovereignty,
our heritage, our self respect--these are not for sale. This is about
putting our people--a lot of people--to work. I believe economic
development should be our leadership's top priority. I have previously
testified before Congress in support of economic development projects.
I have done so in the face of opposition from other leaders who have
opposed these same opportunities on and near the reservation. Some of
those projects experienced costly delays as a result of the Council's
opposition, but they all were built eventually. And they have all hired
Apaches.
I respect the Council's desire to protect sites that have cultural
or historical significance. I want that, too. But Oak Flat is a long
way from us, and I believe strongly that it is possible for our
traditional values to co-exist with economic progress. In fact, I don't
believe one can survive without the other. Economic progress and
prosperity leads to a better standard of living, better health, better
services and better education. It increases our capacity to learn and
expands our cultural horizons. It gives us additional resources to
explore and study our past, to protect what we hold sacred, to showcase
and display those things that are culturally important, and to help the
outside world better understand and appreciate the stories and
traditions of our fathers.
Because many members of the San Carlos Apache Nation are dependent
on the tribal government for food, utilities, and a limited number of
available jobs, they often do not speak out against Council decisions
in fear of losing those benefits. I am not afraid to speak out. I can
assure you I do not stand alone as a member of the San Carlos Apache
Nation in support of the Resolution Copper Mine and the jobs and
prosperity it will create. I made personal phone calls to many people
within my community of 2,000 tribal members and the majority of them
responded in favor of this project.
I respectfully urge Congress to pass this bill. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I welcome any questions you and the committee may have.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate that. I think the only
question that I would have is if your wife had seven children,
she looks much too young to have possibly done that. That must
be a miracle that took place. I would like to yield to
Representative Gosar my time.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cherry, how does
this bill avoid any possible damages to Apache Leap? That keeps
coming up so would you address that for me?
Mr. Cherry. I would be happy to. First of all, Apache Leap
is still under the protection and oversight of the United
States Forest Service. In addition to that, one of the land
parcels that Resolution Copper is donating to this exchange
goes to the Forest Service, and it becomes a part of Apache
Leap.
We also give up our commercial mining rights underneath
that, as well as our mining project, which is to the east of
Apache Leap, and starts farther to the east, and slowly works
to the west, with additional monitoring of progress. We
guarantee that we will not disturb Apache Leap.
Dr. Gosar. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit a letter
submitted on May 14 for the record in regard to Apache Leap.
Mr. Bishop. Without objection, so ordered.
[NOTE: The letter submitted for the record on Apache Leap
has been retained in the Committee's official files.]
Dr. Gosar. Mr. Cherry, in Mr. Featherstone's testimony, he
states that very few financial benefits touted by our company
will be realized by the American public, and that is a rip-off
of the American taxpayer.
This could not be farther from the truth. Is there any
possibility that this mine would be operated remotely from
China?
Mr. Cherry. Absolutely not.
Dr. Gosar. Can you briefly discuss the current jobs related
to this operation?
Mr. Cherry. We currently employ 500 people on this project
right now, and as a matter of fact, in Congressman Grijalva's
district, we are already spending $500,000 a month. We have 100
full-time Resolution employees, and we have 400 contractors on-
site on a daily basis.
And we are spending almost $100 million a year on our
various studies and engineering work that we are doing.
Dr. Gosar. So how well do these jobs pay? What is the
average pay?
Mr. Cherry. The average pay for a mining job is about
$60,000 a year.
Dr. Gosar. So well below the 21,000 jobs that we have been
seeing marketed across the country for job gains, right?
Mr. Cherry. Like I said, our jobs will be $60,000 a year or
better.
Dr. Gosar. I would like to talk about the royalty issue. Is
it not true that Resolution will pay a severance tax to the
State of Arizona and a royalty to the Federal Government on
mineral production?
Mr. Cherry. That is correct. We will be paying fees for
these minerals that are out there under the Department of
Justice Federal Appraisal Guidelines. It is a process and an
appraisal that is dictated by the Federal Government. It is
operated and conducted by the United States Forest Service, and
we support that process.
Dr. Gosar. And more specifically under the Department of
the Interior, right?
Mr. Cherry. Correct.
Dr. Gosar. So lots of Federal oversight in regards to this,
and if I am not mistaken, it could be percentages based on
monthly production. So very unidiomatic and very sensitive to
fluctuations?
Mr. Cherry. And then very transparent, yes.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you. Chairman Talgo, thank you so very
much for coming. My first question to you is that in your
testimony, you say that economic development would be the
number one priority for the leadership of the San Carlos Tribe.
And in fact you point out that the tribes traditions and
cultures can only be sustained with the kind of economic
development that this land exchange is expected to foster in
Southeastern Arizona.
What do you see as the future of the San Carlos people for
whom you dedicated years of your life if this project is not
given the green light?
Mr. Talgo. Currently, the reservation is surrounded by many
mining operations from the west, and the east has Morenci, and
the south has Catamount Mining. So our tribe, our members, some
of them are already employed, and this will provide additional
jobs in the future.
Not only that, it will provide scholarships and other
opportunities for the tribe if they have a good relationship
with the mining company, and they will establish that.
Dr. Gosar. I am also intrigued by your comment that the
tribal leadership does not support H.R. 1904, but that many of
the tribal members that you have spoken to do support it. What
do the members of your community think about you coming here to
testify today?
Mr. Talgo. It is just like I am exercising my rights like
anybody coming here to present my case on their behalf, too.
Dr. Gosar. OK. So now you said that the land exchange would
bring some economic dignity and development for the San Carlos
Tribe. Currently, if I am not mistaken, the unemployment rate
is approaching 75 percent. From the perspective of a former
tribal leader what has this systematic poverty done to the
community?
Mr. Talgo. In the previous Water Rights Settlement, the
tribe was supposed to build an infrastructure toward economic
development, but currently it is devastating, and a
disappointment to the structure that is being built for the
future.
Right now the tribe is currently building a major hospital
and other major developments. However, some of these--like the
industry, there is no such big industry like a cattle company,
or the cattle industry, and so I think mining will be sort of
the industry that will help support our economic future.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will wait for my
turn again.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Deputy Director
Burke, let me ask you a question. Part of the enticement of
this land exchange is the acreage that is being exchange in the
San Pedro as a conservation area, and adding to that
conservation area.
Let me ask you a question. If BHP, which is one of the
parents of Resolution, presently has plans to build out their
housing project up to approximately 5,000 units. What impact
and value to the conservation would that have in terms of the
7B ranch, which is the area, and this is downstream from the
San Pedro as well, this housing development, and part of this
is the whole area.
I think the huge buildup that has happened has done more to
devastate that area than anything else. But let me ask you what
would the housing impact of that magnitude have on the
enticement?
Ms. Burke. We have not looked specifically at that housing
development proposal. What we know is that the acquisition of
these lands would help us maintain downstream surface flows,
but I don't know what impact a residential development would
have on that flow.
Could you provide the Committee with a summary of what
5,000 units would do downstream of the proposed acquisition in
an exchange?
Mr. Burke. Can I give you that in a written answer later?
Mr. Grijalva. Yes.
Mr. Burke. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. To the Forest Service, if I may,
if the land is exchanged within the year as stipulated in the
legislation, how can anything that drives out of the NEPA
process be applied to the land that has already become private?
Mr. Burke. Well, the time requirements in the bill
provisions would be difficult if the NEPA process was followed
in advance of the exchange. To your point, if analysis was
conducted after the exchange, it would be most relevant on
National Forests to the ancillary activities associated with
the mining, power lines, roads, those types of activities.
Mr. Grijalva. But in the land that is involved in the
trade, the public land, once that year is up, what can you do
about NEPA findings that apply to that land once it is already
in the hands of Resolution Copper.
Mr. Burke. The bill provisions would have that land be in
the hands of Resolution Copper, and it would be private land at
that point in time. We are advocating for NEPA to be conducted
in advance of the exchange to go to your points, and to be able
to disclose effects, invite public comment, conduct formal
tribal consultation, mitigate impacts, and inform the decision.
Mr. Grijalva. I know, and given that recommendation, the
reason that I am asking the question is that once it is in
private hands, regardless of what comes out of the NEPA
process, there is not much that can be done.
Mr. Burke. The Federal----
Mr. Grijalva. The nexus is gone.
Mr. Burke.--Government would not be making a requirement on
the private land, correct.
Mr. Grijalva. So this is one where in the different bills
that we have seen on this issue, if that process would have
gone forward instead of having to deal with one legislative
initiative after another, then perhaps some of the questions
that are lingering would have at least been addressed, and they
have not to this point.
One other question. Resolution Copper admits that there are
billions and billions of dollars' worth of minerals in the
ground, of which the United States will probably receive no
benefits.
Thus, even in Resolution Copper's own self-evaluation of
the ore body underlining these public lands is on the orders of
magnitudes greater in value than that of non-Federal parcels
offered in exchange by RCC.
My question is we are not only talking about surface issues
in terms of the land exchange, but with the Forest Service, and
with the Interior, is there any evaluation of the actual
mineral rights that go with that exchange?
Mr. Burke. My understanding of the bill provisions is that
a mineral report would be required, and a valuation would be
put on the copper ore body in consideration for the exchange,
and a cash equalization payment, or additional compensation,
could result.
Mr. Grijalva. After the fact or before the fact?
Mr. Burke. As a consequence of consummating the land
exchange.
Mr. Grijalva. And so that would be good information to
have, but it would not deal with the value of the exchange,
correct?
Mr. Burke. It would contribute to equalizing the exchange.
Mr. Grijalva. I will wait until the next round.
Mr. Bishop. We will have another round. Representative
Gosar.
Dr. Gosar. Mr. Cherry, you said that 70 percent of the land
that you want from the United States is under claim by your
existing mining claims if I am not mistaken. If Congress had
not imposed a ban on claiming patents in 1994, do you believe
that much of the land that you are seeking would already be
yours under the mining laws?
Mr. Cherry. Yes, we do. Over the last 10 years, we have
been actively pursuing mining interests in that area, and those
would have been patented, and we would have picked those up in
that area.
Dr. Gosar. My friend on the other side made mention that
the Federal Government would not benefit from this. I am really
getting kind of--I want to make sure that I am understanding
this. That we are going to get compensation through royalties
through this, plus additional royalties if it goes beyond the
ascertain of the mine. Am I not true?
Mr. Cherry. There is the land appraisal process, and the
cash equalization, which have already been discussed. So that
portion gets contributed to the United States, but just as
importantly the $20 billion in tax revenue to the Federal
Government, State, and local governments, the jobs, and the
taxes on the jobs, et cetera, and the $220 million annual
payroll, those are all benefits that go into the community as
well.
Dr. Gosar. I am a big steward of my environment, and so I
just heard something also that bothers me from my friend on the
other side, which is value for value. The San Pedro River, Ms.
Wagner, could you put a price on that as an ecosystem? Could
you price that for me? Give me a price in dollars.
Ms. Wagner. I think both the Department of the Interior and
the Forest Service, and the Department of Agriculture, have
testified to the importance of the non-Federal parcels, the
ecological values, natural resource values, and the importance
of those properties, no, I could not put a value on it.
Dr. Gosar. It would almost be infinite because it is a
giving process, and because we are restoring an ecological
balance within the whole ecosystem, and so that is unbelievably
much more valuable in regards to it.
So I hope that we don't go back and look at the value
exchange here in another aspect. Mr. Featherstone, have you
benefitted or been awarded funds from the Equal Access to
Justice Funding?
Mr. Featherstone. No.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you. Mr. Lewis, the same question.
Mr. Lewis. No.
Dr. Gosar. OK. Mr. Cherry, you showed us a display of the
copper triangle, and have in another in your written statement
that shows the drill holes and large infrastructures that
already exist near the mine. Can you please pull these displays
back up and highlight this infrastructure again?
Mr. Cherry. I think they are going to put it up on the
screen for us here.
Dr. Gosar. And with particular emphasis on the existing
roads and highways, and power transmissions that the gentle
lady actually talked about these, because most of this, we are
not adapting new ones. We are just utilizing stuff that is
already there am I not? So would you just highlight those for
me, Mr. Cherry?
Mr. Cherry. As soon as they pull the map up here for us.
[Pause.]
Mr. Cherry. I will try to point these out. The pictures are
a little small, but there is a better picture in the packet in
the written testimony. This is the Copper Triangle and the
laser pointer isn't showing on LCD screen here, but shown in
the map on the bright blue lines, those are existing high
voltage transmission lines that are guarding the area. So that
infrastructure already exists, and we would tie into that.
The white lines are major highways that go through the
area. There is also a rail line in the area that we can tie
into to transport product from the site. There are also a
myriad of roads and other developments that we can use to
develop this project.
Shown in kind of the three corners of the triangle are
three existing large mining operations that have been there for
nearly a hundred years and producing. We are located right in
the middle of that.
So infrastructure is everywhere around us, and that is one
of the great advantages to having this mine located where it
is, and we are using the old Superior mine site as a platform
to launch and build a new one, using a lot of the above-ground
and underground infrastructure that is already in place.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you. Mr. Featherstone, I want to go back
to my question again, and so you said that you did not take
equal access or had received Justice funding, but your
coalition members have, have they not?
Mr. Featherstone. Not that I know of.
Dr. Gosar. I would like to have a report submitted in the
10 days, please, sir.
Mr. Featherstone. I am sorry, what?
Dr. Gosar. I would like to have a report on that, because
according to our records, your coalition members have.
Mr. Featherstone. Whatever.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Grijalva, the second round.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Just out of curiosity, and
following up on the nice tone set by my colleague, have any of
the witnesses been employed by Resolution Copper, or any of
their subsidiaries, or any of the numerous consultant lobbyists
that work for the firm?
[No response.]
Mr. Grijalva. Good. Thank you. Mr. Cherry, in the two good
points, in terms of the argument for this legislation that you
made, and let me follow up on it. One was the domestic
production issue, and the consumption that the American people
should have, and the other one was the jobs generation, 3,700 I
think was the number that you indicated initially.
On the issue of the jobs, the calculation for those jobs is
based on what, the mining plan of operation, or the feasibility
study that the firm you hired? What is the basis of that?
Mr. Cherry. The employment estimates are based on a couple
of things. We are in the pre-feasibility design stages right
now. That is based on 1400 direct employees.
Mr. Grijalva. Does that pre-feasibility include the area of
the Federal piece?
Mr. Cherry. It includes the entire comprehensive mine plan,
yes. Fourteen hundred direct employment jobs, and additional
service sector and indirect jobs that would also be created for
that, and that is how we get to those calculations.
Mr. Grijalva. And what is the present level of employment
based on the activities that are ongoing right now in terms of
the company?
Mr. Cherry. We have approximately 100 full-time Resolution
Copper employees, and 400 contractors working on-site on a
daily basis.
Mr. Grijalva. And so I imagine that the population of
Superior is booming, right?
Mr. Cherry. Since I have been around, and since I
originally looked at the site as early as 2004, the
redevelopment on Main Street is actually quote impressive.
Mr. Grijalva. Good. I was going to ask you, and I have also
talked to residents in Superior that feel that--well, that's
why you are having the political turmoil that is going on
because there is some question as to the legitimacy of the job
numbers, and the mine itself, but that is another issue.
I was also going to ask you about the domestic consumption
issue, which I think is a pervasive point, because we are
importing what, 30 percent of our copper right now?
Mr. Cherry. Approximately.
Mr. Grijalva. So the assumption being that--well, is that
an assumption, or is it something that you are going to put in
place, and is the copper generated and extracted from this
operation will not be exported out of the country?
Mr. Cherry. Copper is a commodity that is traded like any
other metal that is out there, but the process by which we
produce a final product, we will produce a copper concentrate
from the mine site, and that will go to smelters to be turned
into pure metal.
We will be looking to fill up any excess capacity in the
United States. Our projections are that we will produce enough
concentrate that we will potentially exceed smelting capacity,
and if that were to occur, we would then have to look
potentially overseas, but that is probably 10 years from now.
So we will be watching the capacity of those smelters.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. Well, what about China? I saw that they
have a major stake in your parent company, Rio Tinto. What
percent do they own?
Mr. Cherry. They own less than 10 percent.
Mr. Grijalva. And part of the negotiation before all that
other problem happened in China with some of the employees of
Rio Tinto, there was the issue of locking in the bulk purchase
of copper for the future by China because they are eating up
that raw material very, very quickly because of their growth,
the growth of their industry and the development in their
country.
What percentage do you anticipate exporting, whether it is
to China or other foreign entities?
Mr. Cherry. We don't have those projections at this time.
We need to look at the smelting capacity of the market as we
get closer to producing our product.
Mr. Grijalva. So hypothetically it could be major
exportation to outside the country, and there is no guarantee
that the domestic claim that you made is where the primary
utility is going to be?
Mr. Cherry. We will produce enough copper to meet 25
percent of the United States domestic demand. Our intent is to
use as much of the United States smelting capacity as we
possibly can to make that happen.
Mr. Grijalva. I will wait for another round.
Mr. Bishop. You do have more questions?
Mr. Grijalva. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. All right. Do any of the other Members have
questions here as well? All right. Let me take a couple of
minutes and go with some of mine as well. Mr. Cherry, can I
start by asking you, and as I understand it, the mine that
would be opened here exists where a previous mine was, and it
would be reopening and deepening a former mine?
Mr. Cherry. The ore body is adjacent to the previous
workings, but we will be utilizing many of the underground and
existing workings and infrastructure that are already in place.
Mr. Bishop. So how long was that earlier mine open?
Mr. Cherry. It operated for almost a hundred years.
Mr. Bishop. And how many people did you employ during that
time like just at its peak operations?
Mr. Cherry. We purchased that from a different mining
company, and I don't have the specific numbers, but I would be
happy to get those for you.
Mr. Bishop. I am under the assumption that the San Carlos
Apache Tribe had many of those jobs at that time?
Mr. Cherry. There were San Carlos Apaches that did work for
that mining operation, and I should probably note that we have
seven San Carlos Apache that are working for us on our project
today.
Mr. Bishop. Has the Tribal consultation occurred with you?
Mr. Cherry. We have reached out to the tribe on a number of
occasions, and asked, and are open to having meetings. We have
not yet been afforded that privilege yet, but I do know that
Congressman Gosar has met with them several times, as has
Senator McCain.
Mr. Bishop. I am assuming, and maybe, Representative Gosar,
you could answer this. Does the legislation have language
dealing with consultation in it?
Dr. Gosar. Yes, it does.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Cherry, what was the intent of the
Eisenhower era Oak Flat withdrawal that we had, was that to be
a permanent withdrawal?
Mr. Cherry. My understanding is that back when that
happened in the fifties that this was one of a number of sites
that was taken out of mineral entry basically to afford camping
areas and recreational opportunities across the country.
Mr. Bishop. Either Major Hing or Supervisor Martyn, but
back in 2007, when the Forest Service's testimony was that the
Department supported the exchange, as well as the evaluation
provisions, and believed that this was in the public interest.
Do either of you still feel that this is in the public
interest?
Mr. Martyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Pinal County Board
of Supervisors feels that this is completely within the public
interest of not only Pinal County, but the State of Arizona.
Mr. Hing. And I have to agree with that, Mr. Chairman, that
it is in the best interests of the public, but I do want to
make a comment about what Congressman Grijalva made earlier
concerning this political turmoil that he claimed that exists
in Superior.
Since I have been the mayor for the past nine years, every
council that I have served on where we have been dealing with
this project have been a hundred percent in unanimous support
of the operation.
We just had recent elections and the same people that
support that operation has been a hundred percent unanimous.
Mr. Grijalva was referring to this turmoil because we do have
like in these little communities little spats that go on, but
that is a side issue.
When it comes to the mining operation the company has
been--and the councils, and even the regional councils, as well
as neighboring town councils, have been very supportive and
have sent resolutions of support of the operation.
And in response to Congressman Grijalva's question, since I
have been working on this project, and I do not work for the
Resolution Cooper----
Mr. Bishop. Hold on for one second here.
Mr. Hing. He mentioned the political turmoil here, and I
didn't understand what he was referring to.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Grijalva will have a chance to
go through that again with you, and I have perhaps have time
for one last question to Chairman Talgo. Has there been a
resolution from the San Carlos Tribal Council in opposition to
this project?
Mr. Talgo. I am not aware of that. My last position with
the tribe was back in 1994, and so since then, I have not
really been involved with tribal politics.
Mr. Bishop. All right. That is kind of concurrent with what
I have heard, that there was not a resolution specifically from
that particular council, but thank you for that. I am going to
yield back the rest of my time. We have been joined here by
another gentleman, the Representative from Arizona, and under
prior UC, we have allowed others to join us here, and
participate. Do you have questions that you wanted to ask?
Mr. Schweikert. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you letting me
sort of sneak in on your Committee. Mr. Cherry, and this is
actually for you and anyone else, but I am blessed actually to
have a district that is somewhat to the west, and I actually
had someone text me a question.
Apparently there is a lot of--and I know that this is a
very small population, but some of these are my friends, but in
recreation, and you have some of the great climbing areas, and
the technical climbing areas around you.
But with the landholdings that you have presently, do you
allow those folks on your land?
Mr. Cherry. We do, and we just recently signed a license
agreement with the Queen Creek Climbing Association.
Mr. Schweikert. You beat me to it, which I think I have to
disclose I am a member of.
Mr. Cherry. Very good. We would like to see you out there
climbing.
Mr. Schweikert. No, trust me, you don't want to see me
climbing anymore. There was a time, but now I am about 20
pounds heavier and it is not pretty, and is it your intention
to allow that type of recreation, because you know that we have
one of the big competitions in those things out in that area
every year.
Mr. Cherry. There are two parts to this aspect. One is that
the land that we currently own, the private land. We have
entered into a license agreement to allow them to come out and
climb, and participate in recreational activities out there.
We are also working on an agreement as to the lands that
would be traded that would become Resolution property. Those
lands would then enter into the same agreement to afford access
to those sites, as long as it is always safe to do so.
Mr. Schweikert. OK. Mr. Chairman, one other question for
Mr. Cherry. How many years has this discussion been going on
with you now?
Mr. Cherry. This particular land exchange has been in the
works for six or seven years.
Mr. Schweikert. And forgive me, because I sit on Financial
Services, but why do I feel that I have heard a half-a-dozen of
these hearings going on around me?
Mr. Cherry. Because you probably have. That is about how
many there have ben over the years on this land exchange.
Mr. Schweikert. And if I step back in history in this same
area, haven't we had discussions of other mining properties
over the last couple of decades?
Mr. Cherry. I am only familiar with this particular one.
Mr. Schweikert. OK. Having been sort of in and out of
Arizona politics over the years, I feel like I am looking at a
map and saying I swear that I have seen this on a board before.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for letting me visit. I got the answer
that I need, and so my fellow rock climbers will be happy with
me.
Mr. Bishop. Are you a concerned climber?
Mr. Schweikert. I actually have a technical lead
certificate, and no, I am not that good.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Denham, you have not had a chance to ask
any questions on this bill. Do you have questions on this
particular bill?
Mr. Denham. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield time to Mr.
Gosar.
Mr. Bishop. We will just go to your time, Mr. Gosar.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you. Mr. Cherry, I want to address the
mining with robotics. We commented earlier in the last couple
of years in regards to the tragedy in the coal mine in the
Western United States, or Eastern United States, and some of
this stuff is very dangerous.
And so we do use the robotics for that very process, do we
not, for safety reasons?
Mr. Cherry. We are always looking to improve safety of our
operations in our mines that are out there. One of the main
things that we are looking at in terms of the automated, and
which they are more appropriately called in this case, remotely
operated, is to get the robotic equipment that can operate at
the working face in a way that is maybe a little bit quicker.
But those still need remote operators. They may not be
sitting on the piece of equipment at the operating face, but
they will be off some distance, and they are still the folks
that maintain it and other jobs associated with that.
Dr. Gosar. And I am aware that the Native Americans--I
mean, I was a dentist, and so the eye-hand combination skill
set for Native Americans is by far higher than anybody else,
and so I had hoped that you would continue looking at the
Native Americans for those job skills.
Ms. Burke and Ms. Wagner, can you tell me the average
timeframe for a NEPA in District One?
Ms. Wagner. I can't specific to the district, but I would
be happy to look into that and provide you that information.
Dr. Gosar. I can actually tell you. It is almost six years.
That is inappropriate, and that is why I had to face my
constituents up in Northeast Arizona that is burning, and I
hope that everybody puts them in their prayers, because that is
the only way that fire is going to stop, is because we have
lacked common sense.
And so I want to come back to that NEPA process, and have
you owned a business?
Ms. Wagner. No, sir.
Dr. Gosar. Well, part of business is that when you own
something, then you can pay for something, and that is what
this detail does, is that if I don't own a piece of property,
then why would I pay for the process, the environmental impact
statement, and those kinds of processes.
And what this basically does is that it does not shirk that
responsibility, but what it does is the company is going to pay
for that instead of the American public. That is what is key
here.
There is no difference. They are going to have to be under
the same rules, the same laws, and nitpicky all the way
through. So I just want to make sure that we understand that,
and part of the problem is that in this NEPA process with which
we are talking about, and why I had Mr. Cherry outline it for
us, is that most of these infrastructures are already here.
Most of these roads, the drilling parts are already done,
and the NEPA process should not have to take so long. I am a
common-sense kind of guy, and I think that the people of
Superior, and I think the people of Arizona, and I think the
people of this country, want to get back to common sense.
And I think that this is where we have to go, and that is
why we put some limitations, because we have to change. We have
to be more nimble, and I am a steward of my environment, but we
should have already had this stuff done.
It shouldn't take a rocket science, and it shouldn't take
six years to do a NEPA process. So I want to make sure that I
am heard in regards to that and in that process, and I am sure
that we are going to be looking at this NEPA process, and the
environmental impact statements, because we have to start
looking at it in stewardship.
Because what we lost in Northeast Arizona is an atrocity.
it is not cataclysmic by nature. It was cataclysmic because of
man. We forgot about common sense, and I am told about it every
day, particularly when we have an industry that is out there
wanting to provide jobs, and to be in stewardship with their
community, and we fail to acknowledge them.
In fact, in this forest determination, it takes a super
human effort by the head of the Forest Service and me just to
get an RFP out that should have been out two-and-a-half years
ago.
And that is why we put some dictations. I want to make sure
that when we have a bill that we live by those accountability
measures. That is not just the private industry, but that is
the Federal Government.
It is communications with local and city, and so those are
the things that we had. We went through extraneous measures to
have dialogue with the Governor, with the land department in
the State of Arizona, to make sure that all the taxpayers, the
stewards of this area, were going to get their fair share, and
that is what it has been here.
And I want to applaud Bryan and Mayor Hing to come here,
because I have to tell you that this actually shows us that
with our banking industry and the shams that it is, I want to
applaud our ideas of natural resources bringing in revenues to
start up industry and start up rural America, because we
deserve nothing less.
We deserve this appropriately and so thank you so very much
for all your stewardship in the business community. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. If this legislation
moves forward, the question, Mr. Cherry, goes back to the issue
of exportation because China is one of Rio Tinto's principal
customers--if not their largest customer.
I think that a lot of the ore that comes from Australia
ends up there, and they are in search of that commodity across
the world, and not to single that out, but in all developing
nations that don't have access to this resource are doing that.
So my question is on the issue of exportation of the ore,
and we should benefit the American people if we are using the
natural resources of the American people, but will there be a
prohibition for exportation of this ore out of the country?
Would you entertain that, and would the company entertain
that?
Mr. Cherry. The copper that we will produce will be sold on
the competitive market. There is a huge demand for copper in
the United States, and as Congressional Gosar mentioned
earlier, the new green energy economy, and with the wind
turbines, and the solar panels, the electric hybrid cars, those
all use a lot more copper than the conventional needs today.
There is going to be a significant demand for copper--not
only from China, but from the United States--and we'll be
competing in the United States to sell that product.
Mr. Grijalva. In the legislation, you have a series of
definitions, and there is Resolution Copper, and there is all
defined, and successors, and so I am anticipating that there
will be a change, let's say, in the ownership of the parent
companies which came close in the past.
And so when you say successors, having read the
legislation, what does that imply to you, Mr. Cherry, that some
other entity could be the responsible party of this legislation
down the road?
Mr. Cherry. We don't anticipate that in any way, but that
is standard legal language to have in there to ensure that
anyone that would take over this, if that were ever to occur,
they would have to live up to the same obligations that we
committed ourselves to.
Mr. Grijalva. And that could be foreign ownership, and it
could be local ownership? I mean, American ownership, right?
Mr. Cherry. Yes, it could be American owners.
Mr. Grijalva. It has to be?
Mr. Cherry. No, I said it could be.
Mr. Grijalva. But it could be foreign as well?
Mr. Cherry. It could be anyone.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. Mayor and Supervisors, thank you for
being here. I appreciate it, and Mayor, when I said turmoil, I
was trying to be--and not trying to get into an explanation
about it, but I thought it was well worth pointing out, and I
appreciate you correcting me if I needed correcting. I don't
think I did, but whatever.
But anyway let me ask a couple of questions. Having been in
the position that you are in as a local elected official,
county supervisor, and I haven't been in any city or that
jurisdictional part, let's talk about value.
The hypothetical situation, and it is not that
hypothetical, and somebody comes to the county, and says--or to
the city, and says that I would like to purchase this piece of
public land for X-project.
And so you can either sell it, and you can sell that at the
value that is on the surface of the land, or what is underneath
the land, minerals, et cetera. Would you go for the highest
value, or the highest return for your taxpayers, or would you
do as we are doing with this legislation, only deal with the
surface issue?
Mr. Hing. Let me comment on that, Congressman Grijalva.
When I look at when they keep bringing up this value issue, and
I know that in the past that they talked about the royalties
back to the Untied States, or the people, and that is something
that you have to figure out.
But when I look at the surface right now is the economic
development that would take place, because this is a resource
that is there. It is not overseas, and it is in the back yard
of Superior, and so that you can't move that ore body.
So the product is there, and you will bring production, and
you will hire people locally in the region to build an economic
base, and that is why I am saying that is important. You are
the ones that will figure this out, the price, and that's why
that is your job, but when I look at it from a service level,
that is important.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Supervisor.
Mr. Martyn. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Grijalva, thank you.
Obviously we look for the highest value for our constituents,
and highest value for our constituents in my opinion represents
the increase in educational opportunities, and increase in the
quality of life, and increase in jobs, increase in economic
benefits to the State of Arizona, versus what we have done in
the past six years, which is nothing.
You have contributed zero to the Arizona economy by doing
nothing on this. There is great value available to us
immediately. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Gosar, did you have some more questions?
All right. Mr. Gosar.
Dr. Gosar. Chairman Talgo, can you name some examples of
the way that the San Carlos Apache Tribe have embraced forward
thinking ways of economic development while respecting their
great traditions?
Mr. Talgo. Well, every Administration has their own
philosophy on how they run their own government. I know and
think that the tribe is working toward developing a strategic
plan based by the Water Rights Settlement that will provide
better future plans.
I really don't have much information from the tribal
government, but it does see a better future. Like in the gaming
industry, right next to the Grove City is a casino. Just
imagine if they built and had 3,500 to 4,000 people on the
payroll, what kind of dividend would the gaming industry bring
to the San Carlos Apache Tribe.
These are some of the answers that should be coming from
the leadership, which they need to confront this because this
stimulus package will bring to their reservation. So to me I
see that in a better sort of economic structure that is going
to provide jobs.
Right now seven out of ten are unemployed, and so I think
that they are the ones that should have an answer.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, and I think another one that came to
mine is the support of the Mac Ground Telescope as well. So
there are things on the horizon. Value. Commissioner Martyn.
You know, this is easy to talk about, and why I keep bringing
it up natural resources is that the state of banking for small
banking in Arizona, can you give me an example of how stable
that banking situation is?
Mr. Martyn. Mr. Chairman, and Dr. Gosar, I can't speak to
the stability of the banking industry in the State of Arizona,
or in the United States at this time.
Dr. Gosar. It is pretty hard to get a loan isn't it?
Mr. Martyn. Yes, it is.
Dr. Gosar. In particular, the Federal Government has
restricted the capital, and so I want to get back to this
natural resource. I am aware that when you have a natural
resource job, and we talk about the support of green energy,
and all these jobs, and I guess that I saw a headline today
talking about the dwindling effects within green energy because
some of the oomph is not behind it.
It circulates in a local community 4 to 5 times if I am not
mistaken, and within a State, 7 to 8 times, and it is an
infusion of new money. So it actually breeds new jobs does it
now?
Mr. Martyn. Amen, it does. It does.
Dr. Gosar. And this isn't just--we are not just talking
about this in Pinal County, because I realize that we have a
big farming aspect do we not?
Mr. Martyn. We do. This impacts far more than just Pinal
County and neighboring Hela County, and the San Carlos Tribe,
and Arizona, and it actually affects the entire Southwest
United States, and ultimately the United States of America.
Dr. Gosar. So when you are talking about value, we want to
have consolidated recreational areas, and we want to be able to
keep pristine areas intact--you know, like the San Pedro
River--for everybody to enjoy, but also have economic
diversity. Do you see that?
Mr. Martyn. I do, Dr. Gosar. I see a critical balance that
must be met relative to the wants, needs, and desires of all of
our citizens of Pinal County and Arizona.
Dr. Gosar. Good. One last thing. Mayor Hing. I want to make
sure that we come back to this discussion, because in the past,
Congressman Schweikert brought up a number of meetings and
hearings that we have had over the years around here. Can you
tell me who has all come to Superior to learn about this, and
do you know in consultation with you with the tribes?
Mr. Hing. Well, I appreciate Senator Kyl and Senator McCain
visiting the site, as well as members of our delegation, but my
concern was with Congressman Grijalva, who has been opposed to
this, has not set foot in the Town of Superior since this
project was underway, and I continue to invite him to come out,
because he needs to meet the people.
He hears a handful who go and knock on his door, and he
needs to come out to the Town of Superior and meet the people.
Dr. Gosar, you don't understand. When we talk about economics,
our community went from 7,000 people to under 3,000 now.
Under 3,000. Do you know how you live through that? Have
you ever been in a community where it has got boarded up, and
just the life just taken out of Main Street, with just a spur
of what is a possibility has put a little bit of life into the
community.
But we have not recovered. I mean, it has been over a
decade now. You come and live in that community, or should we
just desert that, and should we just wipe the Town of Superior
off the map, and that it is not going to make it anymore?
My granddad came in the 1920s from China to make a living.
He raised 10 kids in that family. My dad raised seven of us. I
am raising four. I care about the environment. I am a very
strong environmentalist, but I know that there is a balance.
We have a chance to hold Rio Tinto accountable to the
environment. Why not do it in Superior?
Dr. Gosar. And isn't it about common sense?
Mr. Hing. It is common sense. I asked everyone to come out.
We had Secretary Vilsack, Secretary Salazar come out, and we
said walk the town. They were heartbroken to see that, the
community, and what we went through. So I invite anyone from
the Committee to come out, and we will give you Mexican food.
Don't worry.
Mr. Bishop. I like Chinese food here. All right.
Representative Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. Let me--well, on one of
the issues that Rio Tinto brags about--and going back to the
issue of jobs, because the urgency, and that this will be the
revitalization, and shot in the arm that the region needs, and
certainly the fine people of Superior.
So let's talk about job, and let's lock that job estimate
down, because I am sure that the good mayor here would not want
to be promising the residents and his constituents a number of
jobs, and economic development, and then not see it happen.
And so the guarantees that he has received, let's talk
about the guarantees in public. Realizing that they are mines
of the future, which will include on their promotional
materials, Resolution Copper, humans will no longer need to be
hands on as all of our equipment will be autonomous, and able
to make decisions on what to do base don their environment and
interaction with other machines. Operators will oversee the
equipment from a remote operation center.
Once fully operational the remote operations center is
unlikely to be located in Superior, Arizona. So, let me ask you
the question, Mayor. Would that change at all your support for
this project if, let's say, you are going to these automated
systems now, and in doing so, Mayor, the remote center would go
to where their headquarters is, which is in the Chairman's
State, in Utah, because it can be run at a distance, this
technology, high end.
Does that in any way affect your support for the copper
mine if that were not to come true?
Mr. Hing. Well, you know, I can't speak on behalf of the
company. All I can speak right now to is what they have done
and shown the Town of Superior. The partnership that they have
created with the community, and----
Mr. Grijalva. Well, I am asking you a specific question,
Mayor, and I am saying if that remote----
Mr. Hing. I would not be in favor of that, of course not. I
would not be in favor of that, of course not.
Mr. Grijalva. All right. Thank you. The other thing that I
wanted to ask if I can to Mr. Firestone. There will be a
tailings pile for this mine. Do we know where it is going to be
located, how it will be cleaned up, what will be the cost of
cleaning up the site once mining operations stop, and does the
bill specify who would pay the cost?
Mr. Featherstone. You are asking me that?
Mr. Grijalva. Yes, sir.
Mr. Featherstone. No, we do not. We do not know any of
those things. The company may know that, but until a detailed
mining plan is written, the answers to those questions, we have
no idea, but we can speculate.
At one point in time the company was taking about dumping
their tailings over in the Pinto Valley mine, and now they are
perhaps talking about dumping those next to Supersita and
Vista.
We really don't know until we have something in writing
from the company and the mining plan of operation.
Mr. Grijalva. And under this legislation the land exchange
would be completed before the mining plan of operation is
produced, and the carriage before the horse, or however that
saying goes, and I think it would be important, because
everything about this is not about in pending, or stopping
something. It is about making sure that there are no unintended
or intended consequence to an operation of this magnitude.
I want to enter into the record from the last hearing,
Resolution Copper responded to many questions that were raised,
and in the submittal, Mr. Chairman, there are also the
contradictions about things that have been taken out in this
current legislation that were part of the bragging points that
the company sent us the last time that they were here.
Mr. Bishop. Without objection so ordered.
[NOTE: The information submitted for the record has been
retained in the Committee's official files.]
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. And so the unintended consequences
are very important. The jobs issue, and let's get a firm
number, and let's tie that number to something that cannot be
changed, whether it is a remote operations center, the number
of people that will be working at that site, let's get a
number.
So that way the good people of the region know exactly what
it means. The issue of exportation and our issues of strategic
reserve and in terms of this very valuable ore for our own
Nation's security and stability, and I think those answers need
to be answered.
And the consultation that is not only owed to, but
obligated by Executive Order, that has to happen with the
Native Peoples in the region needs to happen before this is
done.
This is your right. This is about the fourth or fifth
hearing on this, and every hearing these same questions are
asked, and then the company goes to the Senate, and gets them
punted, and nothing happens.
And so the questions persist, and they are going to
continue to persist all the way up to a mark-up, and all the
way to the Floor, and all the way up to the Senate. It behooves
the company, and it behooves the Administration, to answer
these questions, and to consult with the tribes, do the full
NEPA review before, and do the mining plan before, and deal
with those consequences so that the American people will know
the issue of value.
Is the American taxpayer getting his or her fair share out
of this deal. Those questions will persist because there are no
answers to them. This company has been trying to ram this
through one way or another now for five years, and they can try
again.
Those questions are going to persist, because there are no
answers to them, and there must be in order for us to be
transparent, and to give the American taxpayer a fair shake. I
yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Actually, we have spent a long time on this
bill, but this is the purpose of having committees in the first
place. Mr. Grijalva, do you have any other questions that you
want to ask on this one?
Mr. Grijalva. No.
Mr. Bishop. All right. Mr. Gosar, do you have any other
questions that you want to ask on this one? If not, then let me
give you the last five minutes and then we will move on to the
last bill if that is OK, unless you change your mind, and you
get the last word.
Mr. Grijalva. It depends on the five minutes, you know.
Dr. Gosar. You know, I am sad to say, but I am actually
happy that we are actually talking about jobs. I mean, jobs,
jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs.
And it has been a fairly of the Federal Government in
everything that we have touched, from the stimulus to the
banking, to produce jobs. And it is about time that we started
empowering the States and local communities to get back into
this aspects and work.
And I think that we have highlighted the NEPA process, and
that it should be a streamline process, particularly in these
regards. But, Mr. Cherry, my colleague brought up some
wonderful questions in regards to details, and being a dentist,
I am very detailed oriented.
In fact, I have gone through my stewardship looking at
different environments, and also our natural resources, to make
sure that we are compensated appropriately. Are you in dialogue
with the State of Arizona at all with where we are talking
about deposits of these tailings?
Mr. Cherry. We have had discussions with the State of
Arizona on that.
Dr. Gosar. Good, and they will be under full compliance
under the State, as well as the Federal jurisdiction as well?
Mr. Cherry. Anywhere. We are looking at multiple sites, but
anywhere that we put our tailings, or any part of our mining
project, it will all be in compliance with all applicable rules
and regulations.
Dr. Gosar. Let me ask you a question. In consultation with
the tribes, and with the government, and I am a servant of the
government, and I talk to private industries, have you had the
opportunity to speak with the tribes?
Mr. Cherry. I have not.
Dr. Gosar. Actually, they have refused have they not?
Mr. Cherry. I have sent a letter and asked for meetings, an
have been politely told that they are not interested at this
point.
Dr. Gosar. So the consultation process--you know, I have
gone several times, and I have also extended that hand, and we
still try to ignore that, and are still playing up that flag.
So my suggestion is that there are no absolutes, but it is
obvious to me that when we are working in good faith, that we
sit down and communicate, and that is for all parties to
consider.
And number two is that that includes the Federal
Government. The Federal Government working with the State and
local entities, which has not happened. In fact, it has just
been stalled.
And that is why I brought up frankly the Access to Justice
Funding, because what we found out is that we can wait until
the last minute, and put a stamp, and have it filed on a day,
and have it hold up the whole process.
And there is something wrong with that process, and I think
that America is tired of it. Absolutely tired of it. And they
want good faith, and they want some common sense put back in
place.
And so would you, Mr. Cherry, be open to discussions should
the tribes want to talk to you?
Mr. Cherry. Absolutely, at any time, and anywhere.
Dr. Gosar. And do you think that there should be a benefit,
or are you willing to help with the culture of the Apaches, and
your company, and not only today, but in the future?
Mr. Cherry. Absolutely.
Dr. Gosar. And, Bryan Martyn, how about you? How about the
dialogue between Pinal County and the San Carlos?
Mr. Martyn. Dr. Gosar, I can't speak to that. The County
Board of Supervisors has not met directly with the San Carlos
in this situation. We, of course, are available to all
constituents throughout Pinal County and the State of Arizona
relative to projects, and the invitation is always there.
Dr. Gosar. Mayor Hing, how about you?
Mr. Hing. We have asked many times to speak to Chairman
Knowles at the time, and as they stated, they only have
consultation directly with the Federal Government, government
to government, even though I am a local government. They
refuse.
Dr. Gosar. Well, thank you, and that is the end of my
questions.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I will recognize Mr. Grijalva for
the last set of questions.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. To my colleague, and it is not
reacting to just anything, but a couple of corrections. I think
that the Mayor--and the one point that I was going to make, is
that when we talk about consultations with native people, it is
government to government.
There is an issue of sovereignty, and unless Resolution
Copper has become a national government in the last few years
and that I didn't know about, there is no need to consult
there.
The consultation is with the Interior on this issue, and it
is with the Forest Service on this issue, and that is the point
that is being made, and that is the one area that has been
ignored throughout this process, formal government to
government consultations.
And not company to tribe consultations, and not individual
cities to tribe consultation. Federal Government to tribe
consultation, and that is what is demanded by the law.
And I also want to for the record, and I will submit all
those resolutions, the San Carlos Tribe continues to be opposed
to this mine, and they do that in the form of a resolution with
the new Administration that is in place as well, and I will be
entering those and other resolutions for the record, and thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
[NOTE: The resolution submitted for the record has been
retained in the Committee's official files.]
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Well, this ends our non-
controversial bills. I thank all of those that are witnesses in
this particular one, and the Members who deal with this. We
have one bill still to be considered, which is H.R. 869, the
Lower Merced River Flood Control Project.
Ms. Burke, we would ask you to remain for this one, and as
we make this change, I also invite Mr. Brian Kelly, who is the
Director of Regulatory Compliance and Government Affairs from
the Merced Irrigation District; and Mr. Ronald Stork, who is
the Senior Policy Advocate for Friends of the River, to join us
at the table.
[Pause.]
Mr. Bishop. So, welcome, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Stork, who is
making his way there. As we do on the Floor, we are grateful
for our guests, and we would ask them if they would exit
quickly and take the conversations to the hallway, because like
any good legislative body, we don't do any work here until
everyone is gone.
This particular bill is brought to us by Congressman Denham
from California. Congressman, I will recognize you for the
first five minutes to introduce your bill.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF DENHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to
bring this bill up before the Subcommittee today. This
legislation before the Committee today is a simple common-sense
bill that will provide for much-needed water storage during wet
years in the Central Valley of California.
This bill has bipartisan support in Congress, from
California water organizations throughout the State, cities,
counties, labor, and recreationalists, as well as the Central
Valley Coalition of Republicans and Democrats.
This past winter was considered a wet water year for
California. Currently, dams are in flood control operations and
releasing thousands of acre-feet of water due to the lack of
sufficient storage.
The Central Valley of California is home to the world's
most productive farmland, and the economies of most communities
in the Valley are buoyed by the agriculture production that
occurs throughout the Valley.
I would like to submit for the record a chart that shows
the direct correlation to jobs, and the amount of water that
the Central Valley receives. It clearly shows that a lack of
water means that there are a lack of employment opportunities.
My district continually suffers from unacceptable high
unemployment, and currently unemployment is hovering around 18
percent, which is double the national average. We are dependent
on water for jobs, and communities to be sustainable, and
livelihoods of farming operations.
H.R. 869 is as simple a piece of legislation that can be
drafted to create desperately needed water storage. Simply
stated the bill will allow for the Merced Irrigation District
to raise the level of Lake McClure by 10 feet for 60 days
during a wet year.
With this legislation the Merced Irrigation District will
apply for relicensing with FERC, with the proposed spillway
modification included in their application. Their application
will still be subject to the full FERC review process once the
application is filed.
This legislation will provide up to 70,000 new acre-feet of
additional water, which can serve 1700 homes and generate
roughly 10,000 megawatt hours of clean renewable electricity on
an annual basis.
There is no simpler or more logical a proposal to create
jobs, and much needed water storage where both are so greatly
needed. Let me also inform this Committee that this legislation
will not cost any State or Federal funds.
Again, let me thank the Chairman for bringing H.R. 869
before this Committee, and let me thank Mr. Bryan Kelly for
flying out from the Merced Irrigation District to help fully
convey what the bill does, and how much it is needed.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Ms. Burke.
STATEMENT OF MARCILYNN BURKE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Burke. Good afternoon, and thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on behalf of the Department of the
Interior on H.R. 869 concerning the Merced River. This bill
would amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to increase the
allowed level of Lake McClure in Central California.
The BLM does not support H.R. 869 because it conflicts with
previous Congressional direction requiring the BLM to preserve
and protect the lower reaches of the Merced River under the
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
The lower Merced River is noted for having some of the most
outstanding scenery and whitewater boating opportunities in
California. This bill would impact many other marketable values
that make the lower Merced suitable for Wild and Scenic River
status.
H.R. 869 would for the first time authorize the inundation
of a previously designated segment of the Wild and Scenic River
system. This would result in a wild river segment becoming more
like a lake than a river, and compromises the integrity of the
Wild and Scenic River system, the purpose of which is to
preserve rivers and their free-flowing condition.
The BLM supports a careful review and determination on how
best to balance both the protection and use goals of the Merced
watershed. Thank you again for this opportunity to testify, and
I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Burke follows:]
Statement of Marcilynn Burke, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land
Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 869, Lower Merced
Wild & Scenic River Modifications
Thank you for inviting me to testify on H.R. 869, a bill amending
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to increase the allowed level of Lake
McClure in central California. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) does
not support H.R. 869 because it conflicts with previous Congressional
direction requiring the BLM to preserve and protect the lower reaches
of the Merced River under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The full
implications of H.R. 869 are not clear, and the BLM believes further
study and consideration are necessary before final action is taken. The
BLM supports a careful review and determination on how best to balance
both the protection and use goals of the Merced watershed.
Background
Section 1 of the 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Public Law 90-
542) sets forth Congress' vision for management of the Nation's rivers:
``It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States
that certain selected rivers of the Nation which, with their
immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable
scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic,
cultural, or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-
flowing condition, and that they and their immediate
environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment
of present and future generations. The Congress declares that
the established national policy of dam and other construction
at appropriate sections of the rivers of the United States
needs to be complemented by a policy that would preserve other
selected rivers or section thereof in their free-flowing
condition to protect the water quality for such rivers and to
fulfill other vital national conservation purposes.''
From its headwaters in the snow-fed streams of the Yosemite
National Park high country, the Merced plunges thousands of feet
through boulder lined canyons before emptying into Lake McClure. Over
122 miles of the Merced River in central California have been
designated by Congress as components of the National Wild and Scenic
River System.
In 1992, Public Law 102-432, extended the previously designated
Merced Wild and Scenic River by an additional eight miles to the 867
feet spillover level of Lake McClure. The BLM manages the upper five
miles as a recreational river and the lower three miles as a wild
river. Under the provisions of P.L. 102-432, the level of Lake McClure
may not exceed an elevation of 867 feet above mean sea level, a level
intended to balance water and power needs of the local community with
protection of the outstanding remarkable values of the lower Merced
River.
The lower Merced River is noted for having some of the most
outstanding scenery and whitewater boating opportunities in California
and the nation. Every summer over 10,000 whitewater enthusiasts test
their skills on the river. The BLM currently permits 12 commercial
businesses, which guide most of these recreationists on this section of
the Merced River.
The communities of Mariposa and El Portal benefit from these
whitewater boaters who contribute to the local tourism economies.
Boaters generate important economic activity during the traditionally
lower visitation times of spring and early summer, expanding the length
of the Yosemite region tourism season. This river-dependent tourism
provides a greater level of economic and employment stability for these
communities.
H.R. 869
H.R. 869 provides for an increase in the allowed lake level, from
the currently permitted 867 feet to 877 feet for a period not to exceed
60 days, along with a 30 day draw-down period. This elevated level
would occur from May 1 and July 31, which coincides with peak
recreation season for the corridor. It is our understanding that the
intent is to provide additional power and water supplies for home and
agricultural use in the Central Valley of California during wet years.
The full implications of H.R. 869 are not clear and the BLM
recommends the bill's ramifications be more fully explored before the
Committee moves forward. Potential impacts from inundation could be
substantial to both natural resources and local economies. It appears
that approximately one-half mile of the Merced Wild and Scenic River
corridor would be inundated by an increase of the McClure Lake by ten
feet above current levels.
Among the potential resource implications of this inundation are
habitat loss for both the limestone salamander (a California designated
Fully Protected Species) and the elderberry longhorn beetle (a
federally listed threatened species under the Endangered Species Act).
The BLM Limestone Salamander Area of Critical Environmental Concern
(ACEC) would be at least partially flooded. Impacts may also include
loss of riparian vegetation and degradation of the scenic values of the
corridor. Additionally, significant cultural and historic resources in
the area, including the remains of the Yosemite Valley Railroad and
historic gold-mining sites would be degraded.
A variety of recreation activities within the river corridor could
also be impacted by the legislation. For whitewater boaters, inundation
would add another half-mile to an already arduous paddle across flat
water to an alternate take-out. In addition to boaters, the canyon is
becoming increasingly utilized as a recreational destination for
hikers, mountain bikers, and equestrian riders who could be displaced
by a likely inundation of five miles of the existing Merced River
trail.
H.R. 869 would authorize for the first time the inundation of a
previously designated segment of the Wild and Scenic River System. Such
an unprecedented action would result in a wild river segment becoming
more like a lake than a river and could compromise the integrity of the
Wild and Scenic River System, the purpose of which is to preserve
rivers in their ``free-flowing condition.''
Conclusion
Before further action is taken on H.R. 869, the BLM recommends that
all of these implications of changes to the level of Lake McClure be
more fully explored. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
______
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Kelly.
STATEMENT OF BRYAN KELLY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Kelly. Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and
Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Bryan Kelly, and I am
the Director of Regulatory Compliance and Government Affairs--
Water, for the Merced Irrigation District.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R.
869. I would like to begin by thanking Congressman Denham and
the cosponsors of H.R. 869 for introducing this bipartisan bill
that could improve the precarious water supply situation in
California's San Joaquin Valley at no cost to the Federal
Government.
The Merced Irrigation District owns and operates
hydroelectric facilities on the Merced River, consisting of the
New Exchequer Dam and Reservoir, and Lakes McClure and McSwain.
They are located in the western foothills of the Sierra
Nevadas, approximately 23 miles northeast of the City of
Merced. The water managed by MID flows west through Lakes
McClure and McSwain, and continues down the Merced River and
through over 700 miles of canals, to serve over 2200 growers in
Merced County.
The water supplied by the New Exchequer Dam supports
approximately 3600 jobs, and $120 million in agriculture. The
majority of those served by MID are family farmers, with an
average parcel size of 30 acres.
The hydroelectric facilities operate under a license from
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC. That license
is up for renewal in 2014 and is part of the relicensing
process that MID has developed a New Exchequer spillway
modification project.
The project would increase the height of the existing
spillway gates on Lake McClure and raise the crest elevation of
the existing ungated spillway by approximately 10 feet to allow
for additional storage capacity in wet years.
MID would be able to take full advantage of this additional
storage about once every three years, capturing up to 70,000
acre-feet of water in a single wet year. MID would pay the
estimated $40 million cost of the spillway modification
project, and no Federal funding is required.
But the Federal legislation is necessary to allow FERC to
consider the merits of the project. That is the purpose of H.R.
869. In 1992, Congress amended the Wild and Scenic River Act to
add the lower Merced River to the Wild and Scenic River System.
The Act set the downstream boundary of the Wild and Scenic
designation at the normal maximum operating level of Lake
McClure at 867 feet above sea level. This means that the Wild
and Scenic designation extended into MID existing FERC boundary
for Lake McClure.
The Act also contains a provision for flood control
operations. This provision is important because during high
snow melt conditions the river at the upper end of Lake McClure
is actually higher than the lake level at the dam, with water
levels above the 867 foot Wild and Scenic boundary.
This happens on a regular basis during wet years, and it is
happening now. This month the water level in the Wild and
Scenic portion of the river contained within the FERC boundary
was about at an elevation of 884 feet, while the water surface
at the New Exchequer Dam was 824 feet.
The Act also says that FERC may only relicense MID's
hydroelectric project to a maximum normal operating level of
867 feet. This provision prevents FERC from considering MID's
spillway project, which proposes to occasionally maintain a
lake level up to 877 feet.
H.R. 869 is intended to allow FERC to consider the project
on the relicensing process, and sets limits on the time and
duration of the temporary inundation of the Wild and Scenic
area.
And I want to be absolutely clear on this. MID supports the
Merced River's Wild and Scenic designation above Lake McClure.
This designation helps to ensure MID's water sources is one of
the most pristine in California.
It is important to note that H.R. 869 does not mandate,
authorize, or in any way prejudge the merits of the proposed
project. It simply allows the project to undergo a rigorous
examination by FERC and other Federal and State Agencies in a
public process.
The process would address all potential impacts in
accordance with NEPA, CEQA, ESA, and California ESA. MID has
discussed the proposed project with conservation groups, and is
aware of their concerns about H.R. 869, and setting a precedent
for altering the Wild and Scenic Act.
MID is open to discuss ways in which to address this with
them. However, a project that can provides tens of thousands of
acre-feet of new water in the San Joaquin River Valley at no
Federal costs certainly bears consideration by FERC.
Every urbanized area in Merced County is a disadvantaged
community. Our unemployment rate continues to hover around 18
to 20 percent. Agriculture remains the largest employer in our
community, and agriculture depends on water.
According to a 2009 study, each 100,000 acre-feet of water
supports 1200 local jobs and $40 million in agriculture
revenues. H.R. 869 is simply intended to allow FERC to consider
a project that will create jobs and further support Merced
County's economic base.
We ask that the Subcommittee and the House Natural
Resources Committee support H.R. 869. Thank you for your time
and consideration.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kelly follows:]
Statement of Bryan Kelly, Director of Regulatory Compliance and
Government Affairs--Water, Merced Irrigation District, on H.R. 869
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the
Subcommittee, my name is Bryan Kelly and I am the Director of
Regulatory Compliance and Government Affairs---Water for the Merced
Irrigation District (MID). I am pleased to be offered this opportunity
to testify in support of H.R. 869, legislation that would allow the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to consider proposed
improvements to the spillway at New Exchequer Dam that will provide
additional water supply to Merced County and the San Joaquin Valley of
California.
I'd like to begin by thanking Congressman Denham and the cosponsors
of H.R. 869 for introducing this bipartisan bill that could improve the
precarious water supply situation in California's San Joaquin Valley
without major environmental impact and at no cost to the federal
government.
The Merced Irrigation District is a California Public Agency under
the California Irrigation District Law. MID owns, operates and
maintains hydro-electric facilities on the Merced River, consisting of
the New Exchequer Dam and Reservoir (Lake McClure) and McSwain Dam and
Reservoir (Lake McSwain). They are located in the western foothills of
the Sierra Nevada mountain range, approximately 23 miles northeast of
the City of Merced. Lake McClure has a storage capacity of 1,024,600
acre-feet, while Lake McSwain has a storage capacity of 9,730 acre-feet
and is operated principally as a regulating reservoir for MID's
hydroelectric generation facilities at New Exchequer Dam (FERC Project
No. 2179).
The water managed by MID flows west from Lakes McClure and McSwain
through the New Exchequer Dam hydroelectric plant creating over 100
megawatts of clean, renewable energy. The water then continues down the
Merced River or through more than 700 miles of canals for irrigation
use by more than 2,200 Merced County growers. The average 300,000 acre-
feet of irrigation water supplied by New Exchequer Dam directly
supports approximately 3,600 jobs and $120 million in agriculture
revenue. The majority of those served by MID's water are family
farmers, with the average farm size being 30 acres.
Proposed New Exchequer Dam Spillway Modification Project
MID's hydroelectric facilities are operated under a license from
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. That license is up for
renewal in 2014, and as part of the relicensing process MID has
reviewed potential project enhancements, including increased storage in
Lake McClure. In many years, runoff exceeds the reservoir's storage
capacity and additional capacity would allow for the capture of excess
runoff for use during future dry years. 2011 has been a very wet year,
and MID will most likely completely empty the equivalent of Lake
McClure's full capacity to provide storage space required to
accommodate run off from a record-setting snowpack.
To be able to store at least some of this wet-year bounty, MID has
developed The New Exchequer Dam Spillway Modification Project (the
Project). The Project would increase the height of the existing
spillway gates on Lake McClure and raise the crest elevation of the
existing un-gated spillway by approximately 10 feet to allow for
additional storage capacity in wet years within the existing FERC
Project Boundary.
Based on known hydrology, we estimate that MID would be able to
take full advantage of this additional storage about once every three
years, capturing up to 70,000 acre-feet of water in a single wet year.
This occasional, short-term boost in storage will provide water supply
benefits year after year by allowing higher carryover storage. We
estimate that the project would increase average critical (dry) year
water supply by 15,000 acre-feet. The additional water would also
enhance MID's groundwater storage and conjunctive use opportunities,
provide incidental flood control benefits and provide greater
flexibility in meeting the needs of agriculture and the environment
within MID and in the San Joaquin Valley as a whole.
The additional water would also generate up to an additional 10,000
mega-watt hours per year of clean, renewable energy, enough power to
serve 1,700 homes.
MID would pay the estimated $40 million cost of the Spillway
Modification Project. No federal funding is required. But federal
legislation is necessary to allow FERC to consider the merits of the
project during the relicensing process. That is the purpose of H.R.
869.
Wild and Scenic River Implications
In 1992, Congress amended the Wild and Scenic River Act (P.L. 102-
432) to add the lower Merced River to the upper reaches of the Merced
as part of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. In all, more than 120
miles of the Merced River from Yosemite National Park to the upper end
of Lake McClure is protected as Wild and Scenic.
The 1992 Act set the lower boundary of the Wild and Scenic
designation at the normal maximum operating level of Lake McClure: 867
feet above sea level. This means the Wild and Scenic portion of the
river extended into the existing FERC boundary for MID's hydro-electric
facilities (including Lake McClure). MID supported the 1992 legislation
after it was changed to ensure that the Wild and Scenic designation
would not affect the continued operation and maintenance (including
flood control operations) of the New Exchequer Project. The provision
for flood control operations is important because during certain flood-
water ``surcharge'' conditions, the upper end of Lake McClure is
actually higher than the lower end at the dam, causing water levels to
rise above the 867-foot Wild and Scenic boundary. This happens on a
regular basis during wet years. It's happening now. This month the
water level at the upper end of Lake McClure and within the Wild and
Scenic portion of the river contained within the FERC boundary, was at
about elevation 884 mean sea level (MSL), while the water surface
elevation at New Exchequer Dam was approximately 824 feet MSL.
The 1992 Act says that FERC may only relicense MID's hydroelectric
project to a maximum normal operating level of 867 feet above sea
level. FERC has determined that this provision prevents it from
considering MID's proposed Spillway Modification Project as part of its
relicensing effort. MID's engineers estimate that during wet years, the
project would cause the reservoir to rise up to 10 feet and extend
approximately 1,800 feet laterally into the Wild and Scenic corridor
(but still within the FERC boundary). These inundations would occur
about once every three years, typically in mid-summer and last from two
to eight weeks. As noted above, this inundation occurs regularly. MID
is simply proposing to store some of this excess flow for a short
period of time so that it can be put to beneficial use.
H.R. 869 is intended to allow FERC to consider the Spillway project
during the relicensing process and the bill sets limits on the timing
and duration of the temporary inundations of the Wild and Scenic area
that would be caused by the project.
I want to be absolutely clear on this: MID supports the Merced
River's Wild and Scenic designation above Lake McClure's FERC boundary.
This designation has helped to ensure that MID's water source is one of
the most pristine in California by prohibiting new discharges, mining
and other activities that have historically degraded water quality.
H.R. 869 does not mandate, authorize or in any way pre-judge the
merits of the proposed spillway modification project. It simply allows
the project to undergo a rigorous examination by FERC and other Federal
and State agencies in a public process that will identify and address
all potential impacts in accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the California Endangered
Species Act (CESA).
MID has discussed the proposed spillway project with conservation
organizations and we are aware of their concerns about H.R. 869 setting
a precedent for altering Wild and Scenic boundaries. We take those
concerns seriously, and MID is open to discussing ways to address them
in a manner that would allow the spillway project to get a fair hearing
before FERC. But MID believes that the merits and the benefits of the
project should be weighed against philosophical objections to making a
tiny adjustment to a boundary line. A project that can provide tens of
thousands of acre-feet of new water to the San Joaquin Valley at no
federal cost certainly bears consideration by FERC even if it would
cause the reservoir to occasionally stray 1,800 feet into the 122-mile-
long Wild and Scenic River corridor.
Economic Benefits
The significance of any new water supply for the Central Valley
cannot be overstated.
In California's Central Valley, we often refer to ourselves as
``The Other California.'' We don't produce movies, nor do we produce
microchips: we produce the vast majority of the nation's fruits, nuts
and vegetables. In fact, we produce more than $30 billion per year in
agriculture. In most simple terms, Merced County's economy depends on
agriculture and water. Agriculture remains the largest employer in our
community and agriculture depends on water. According to a 2009 U.C.
Davis study, each 100,000 acre-feet of water supports 1,200 local jobs
and $40 million in agriculture revenues.
Merced County continues to be ground zero in this economic
recession. Every urbanized area in Merced County is a Disadvantaged
Community, including incorporated cities and unincorporated
communities, based on the criteria defined in California Water Code
Sec. 79505.5(a). We have experienced the housing bubble at its worst
and remain within the top 10 in the nation for foreclosed properties.
Our unemployment rate continues to hover around 20 percent, placing
Merced also within the top 10 for the highest rate of unemployment.
H.R. 869 is simply intended to allow the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission to consider a proposed project that will create jobs and
further support Merced County's economic base. We ask that the
Subcommittee and the House Natural Resources Committee support H.R.
869.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Stork.
STATEMENT OF RONALD STORK, SENIOR POLICY ADVOCATE, FRIENDS OF
THE RIVER
Mr. Stork. My name is Ron Stork. I am the former Executive
Director of the Merced Canyon Committee at the time that the
Federal agencies under Ronald Reagan were making their
recommendations to designate this river.
I was also the principal staff person at Friends of the
River who testified before the Congress and was involved in
those Congressional discussions, and the discussions with the
Merced Irrigation District in Mariposa County, that led to the
support of the original designation by both the District and
Mariposa County, Friends of the River, environmental groups,
and Congress, a bipartisan Congress, back in 1992.
H.R. 869 allows for a reservoir to inundate a National Wild
and Scenic River. The National Wild and Scenic River System was
established to protect and preserve free-flowing rivers for the
benefit of present and future generations. It is not the
National Reservoir and Protection Act, nor is it the National
Protect A River for 20 Years and Then Turn It Into a Reservoir
Act. Needless to say, this would be the first time, if enacted,
that the U.S. Congress has broken the contract that it has made
with the American people about the purpose of the National Wild
and Scenic River System.
We urge the Committee to reject this bill. This legislation
was worked out over quite a number of years ago by Senators
Seymour and Senator Wilson, and Congressman Coehlo, and Coehlo,
and Condit, Mariposa County, and the Merced Irrigation
District.
The Merced Irrigation District did not object to this bill
for the same reasons that you have just heard at the time, and
in the end, we all reached an accommodation, which was ratified
by the Congress, in which there was glowing praise by the
Republican leadership of this Subcommittee in the Congressional
record for having done so.
That agreement did not include reservations that in 20
years that we would come back and undo the agreement that we
had reached. There are wider consequences to this issue.
Clearly business certainly is something of concern to this
Congress. Regulatory certainty.
The Wild and Scenic System is a stable contract, and there
are businesses, recreation businesses, that have invested and
continue to do business in this National Wild and Scenic River,
on the basis of the fact that it is indeed a protected river.
The notion that we would unprotect it is certainly not
something that builds confidence in the business community
about regulatory certainty associated with this statute. I
think that it is important to understand that the water yield
associated with this project--I don't know, 10,000 acre-feet
per year--is something.
The ground water overdraft in the San Joaquin Valley, as
Mr. Denham certainly knows, is about two million acre-feet per
year. There are quite a few hundreds of thousands of acres that
could be watered in the San Joaquin Valley if water was
available.
This amount of water is decimal dust with regard to those
perceived needs. So needless to say Congress was aware of that
at the time in 1992, and made the judgment that protecting
these lands was the appropriate balance to strike, and it was a
stable commitment with the American people, that we would
protect and preserve this river, and this section of river, for
the benefit of present and future generations. So that
concludes my remarks. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stork follows:]
Statement of Ronald Stork, Senior Policy Advocate,
Friends of the River, on H.R. 869
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee,
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am the senior
policy advocate for Friends of the River. Founded in 1973, Friends of
the River is California's statewide river conservation organization. In
the past, I served as executive director of the Merced Canyon Committee
and later as principal representative for Friends of the River in the
Federal agency planning efforts that resulted in recommendations to
protect the river. I was subsequently involved throughout Congress's
deliberations that culminated in the 1987 and 1992 Merced River
designations from the headwaters in Yosemite National Park to the
present Lake McClure Reservoir. The Merced River canyon is the year-
round gateway to Yosemite National Park, and it is one of America's
best known and most beloved rivers. We oppose H.R. 869 and urge you to
continue to preserve and protect our river heritage for the benefit of
current and future generations.
Effect of H.R. 869
H.R. 869 proposes to amend the National Wild & Scenic Rivers Act to
redefine reservoir storage operations of a potentially expanded Lake
McClure Reservoir as flood-control operations, and allows the
modification of the dam complex to allow the reservoir to invade the
Wild and Scenic River upstream for these defined purposes. H.R. 869 is
in fundamental conflict with the major purpose of the National Wild &
Scenic Rivers Act: to ensure that no project works impound waters that
convert a free-flowing river into a reservoir. For the sake of the
integrity of our National Wild and Scenic River System, Congress should
reject H.R. 869.
Background of Merced National Wild & Scenic River
The current reservoir/wild and scenic river boundary and associated
boundary policy definition was proposed by the U.S. Forest Service,
Bureau of Land Management, and National Park Service under President
Ronald Reagan in 1986. California Republican Senator Pete Wilson
introduced the first bill to designate the river/wild & scenic river
boundary at its present location in 1987. The framework of the final
bill with its accommodations for Mariposa County and for the Merced
Irrigation District was fashioned by Rep. Tony Coehlo, who on his
retirement concluded that his work to save the Merced River was his
most personally meaningful achievement in his time in Congress.
An agreement on the final language of the bill designating this
reach of the Merced National Wild & Scenic River was reached among the
Senate Energy Committee, California Republican Senator John Seymour,
Senator Alan Cranston, the House sponsor of the bill, Gary Condit, the
Merced Irrigation District (MID), Friends of the River, and the
Wilderness Society in 1991. The resulting bill was cosponsored by
Senator Seymour and signed by President George H.W. Bush in 1992.
H.R. 869 seeks to reverse the Reagan-era agency recommendations and
the consensus agreements fashioned by the authors of the legislation
that originally created the Merced National Wild & Scenic River.
Purpose of the National Wild & Scenic River System
The National Wild and Scenic River System was established to
protect and preserve a portion of our nation's dwindling stock of free-
flowing rivers that has been substantially reduced from extensive
development of dams, reservoirs, levees, and diversions. Congress did
not create the national wild and scenic river system as a national
reserve for future reservoirs but as a system to protect living free-
flowing rivers for posterity. Since the creation of the system, the
United States Congress has never removed the protections from dams and
impoundments so central to the Act from a previously designated
national wild and scenic river. It should not do so now.
H.R. 869 proposes to allow expansion of a reservoir to inundate a
free-flowing river of national significance, an action that would be in
fundamental conflict with the purposes of the national system that
``selected rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate
environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational,
geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar
values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and
their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and
enjoyment of present and future generations.'' (Sec. 1b Wild & Scenic
Rivers Act)
When it created the National Wild and Scenic River System, Congress
made an explicit pact with the American people: ``The Congress declares
that the established national policy of dam and other construction at
appropriate sections of the rivers of the United States needs to be
complemented by a policy that would preserve other selected rivers or
sections thereof in their free-flowing condition to protect the water
quality of such rivers and to fulfill other vital national conservation
purposes.'' (Sec. 1b Wild & Scenic Rivers Act). At full pool, twenty-
four miles of the Merced River downstream of the designated wild &
scenic river lie under MID reservoirs licensed by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission. Upstream, the Merced River is protected by the
National Wild & Scenic Rivers Act from dams and reservoirs all the way
into Yosemite Valley and beyond.
The certainty of protection afforded by a National Wild and Scenic
River also creates regulatory certainty in the business environment.
The reliance on the Merced National Wild & Scenic River has been
important to tourism businesses around Yosemite National Park. For
example, one of the whitewater rafting companies who serve customers on
the Merced recently wrote the following to Mariposa County:
Zephyr Whitewater is only one of several rafting companies that
utilize this section of the river for our late season trips.
Additionally, the proposed Merced River Canyon bike trail would
be another feather in the cap for Mariposa County's ``things to
do''. It would be a much more popular trail if it followed a
free-flowing Merced River instead of an expanded reservoir.
When we operate our late season trips on this lower section, we
currently hire local people to ``tow'' our rafts to Bagby
through the existing reservoir. An expanded reservoir would
probably stop our operations, as this would make an already
``long'' tow out probably ``too long''. Additionally, the
``dead zone'' which always exists with rising and lowering
upper reaches of reservoirs would render this section of the
river unattractive and would setback Mariposa County's growing
reputation as an outdoor destination.
Legislative Considerations
(It's deja vu all over again, or there is nothing new under the sun)
The Federal agencies did not recommend and the Congress did not
establish the Merced National Wild and Scenic River without careful
deliberation. In addition to recognizing the obvious scenic,
recreational, and natural resources of the Merced River, the
implications of the designation on MID were considered.
Water
Consistent with the language of Sec. 1b of Wild & Scenic Rivers Act
above, it was noted that for year after year after the construction of
its 1960s-era giant dams on the Merced River, the Merced Irrigation
District reported in its annual reports that ``[t]he District now has
virtual control of the waters of the Merced River as long as such
waters were put to beneficial use, and is assured of an adequate
irrigation supply for the foreseeable future.''
It has been said by some today that the significance of any new
water to the San Joaquin Valley cannot be overstated. However, the
meaningfulness of that general statement needs to be guided by the
numbers. Even then, this was the subject of Congressional testimony in
1991. Using standard storage-to-yield ratios for new storage in already
diverted watersheds, this project might be expected to increase yield
to someone and for some purpose by an average of perhaps 10,000 acre-
feet per year--some years more, most years none or less. The
consumptive water rights and average annual consumptive diversions
associated with MID's project works amount to over half a million acre-
feet per year. Project deliveries of the federal Central Valley Project
are around six to ten million acre-feet per year. MID's project idea,
even if constructed, is not going to provide any meaningful amount of
new water to the San Joaquin Valley or even to MID, which does not hold
the most senior water rights on the portion of the San Joaquin River
system where water still finds its way to the Delta. The marginal yield
of such a project was noted in testimony before the Congress in 1991.
That has not changed. Today, the adverse precedent contained in H.R.
869 that our National Wild and Scenic River System can be used as
reservoir sites is far more meaningful.
Floods
It was noted in testimony then (as now) that New Exchequer Dam has
never filled and spilled.
Dam Safety
At the time that the Federal agencies were considering finding wild
and scenic river designations for the Merced River, I asked Tim
McCullough, the then general manager of MID, whether the District had
any plans to enlarge the Lake McClure Reservoir rather than build a new
dam upstream. He leaned back in his chair and laughed, saying he had no
interest in putting more water against a dam that had such a long
history of through-dam seepage.
The project that H.R. 869 is designed to facilitate, as presently
conceived by MID, is to construct operable gates on top of the
emergency spillway. Emergency spillways are generally conceived of as
the last line of defense against overtopping and potential failure of a
dam. Dam-safety officials generally prefer that the last line of
defense operate regardless of mechanical failures, human error,
control-system failures, flood-debris disruption, other mishap, or even
terrorists in control of the operating features of a dam. Again, as
noted in testimony before Congress in 1991, it could be very expensive
to raise and perhaps stabilize the whole dam/spillway complex so that
the existing margins of safety for through-seepage and design to
prevent the reservoir from flowing over structures not designed to be
overtopped--such as the main dam--are maintained with a higher Lake
McClure Reservoir. The national wild and scenic river legislation for
the Merced River enacted by the Congress and supported by MID at the
time wisely took the reservoir-expansion option off the table as part
of establishing a protected free-flowing river.
Wild & Scenic River eligibility
For much of the time the designation was being considered by the
Reagan-era Federal agencies and the Congress, MID did argue that the
wild and scenic river designation boundary should be moved somewhere
upstream, arguing that a river in flood pouring into a surcharged
reservoir--by definition spilling over the top of its ungated
spillway--would be inconsistent with the proposed wild and scenic river
designation. The Federal wild and scenic river managing agencies and
the Congress had previously (and have subsequently) rejected that view
in other similar designations. They again rejected that view in 1986
and 1992 since MID cannot physically or meaningfully impound water that
was flowing freely over the top of its long ungated spillway and only
Providence (not the Congress) could predict how high such a
hypothetical flood would be. Contingent on the acceptance of language
to make this operational position clear in the statute, the MID board
of directors voted 4-0 to support the legislation that ultimately was
enacted into law. All was well. The river and the river-based
recreation there has prospered.
Reflections
We urge members of the Subcommittee to visit the Merced River
canyon on your next trip to Yosemite National Park. Just take Highway
140 from the City of Merced and drive up to the river. The canyon is
magnificent. The spring wildflowers are magnificent. The river is a
wonder. Get out of your car. Hike or boat down the canyon. Perhaps some
day your young and adventurous college-age sons or daughters will
mountain bike to Yosemite Valley up the proposed Merced to Yosemite
multi-use trail. This is why we have national wild and scenic rivers.
Experience it.
Conclusion
H.R. 869 breaks the agreements and understandings that created the
Merced River wild and scenic river. The project that it seeks to
facilitate will not provide any meaningful project benefits and offers
dangers to downstream communities. It disturbs the economic fabric of
businesses reliant on the certainties that wild and scenic river
designations create. Perhaps most important at all, it tells the
American people that Congress is unable or unwilling to abide by the
commitments it has made to set aside certain selected rivers and
protect them for future generations.
The pact with the American people for the Merced River was made a
generation ago with leadership from Republican and Democratic
legislators and by Republican presidents. The actions that this
Congress takes to defend our country's premier river-protection system
are vital to the future National Wild and Scenic River System and have
important consequences to our National Park System as well as the
Wilderness Preservation System.
Please reject H.R. 869.
Thank you for your consideration today.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you all, the three witnesses, for your
testimony. Questions. Mr. Denham, I will yield my five minutes
to you.
Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, Mr. Stork,
you just in your testimony discussed about the two million
acre-feet of overdraft that we would see in the Central Valley,
and I don't dispute that.
You know, we see a lot of areas throughout the Valley that
water tables are very, very low, and farmers certainly out of
work. If you visited Mendota and seen the 44 percent
unemployment and stood on those food lines, you certainly know
how bad of a situation that our Central Valley is in now.
Now, I don't believe that--assuming this bill passes and
assuming FERC is able to see it in their wisdom to raise the
Exchequer Dam by 10 feet--I certainly don't think that this is
going to solve all of our problems in the Central Valley.
But don't you think that it helps? Don't you think that the
70,000 new acre-feet of water at least helps the situation?
Mr. Stork. It may not help the District much. The District
has a fairly secure and stable water supply, and manages to
serve its agricultural areas. It does sell water from time to
time to Mr. Costa's Westlands Water District, which has----
Mr. Denham. Which is in the Central Valley, correct?
Mr. Stork. It is in the Central Valley, and it also has
drainage and impaired lands that are worsened by having more
water added to them. But it is a small amount of water.
Mr. Denham. So, 20 percent unemployment in the Valley, and
areas in the Valley that have 44 percent unemployment, 70,000
acre-feet of new water doesn't help the unemployment issue?
Mr. Stork. We are not sponsoring 70,000 acre-feet of water.
You are mixing up storage with yield.
Mr. Denham. OK. Any new water storage, you don't think
helps the jobs in the Central Valley?
Mr. Stork. Any new water storage? There are also the jobs
in Mariposa County associated with the recreation industry that
depend on the security of the National Wild and Scenic System.
So I think that we do have a balance here. This is a very
small amount of water. It does not solve any water problems
with----
Mr. Denham. I agree that it does not solve the problem, but
it certainly helps with jobs and it certainly helps with water
storage, and the availability of water. Do you think that it
helps with jobs in Mariposa County?
Mr. Stork. No, I think it hurts jobs in Mariposa County.
Mr. Denham. So the project itself will not create any new
jobs, the reason that IVW supports the bill? Do you think that
they are wrong, and that this does not create any jobs just on
the project itself?
Mr. Stork. Well, of course, we are speaking about a
hypothetical project that has not even been approved by anyone.
Mr. Denham. Well, you are testifying on a hypothetical
project, and so it must have some validity.
Mr. Stork. I don't think that a project that raises----
Mr. Denham. I would prefer that you just answer the
question.
Mr. Stork. No.
Mr. Denham. So do you think that IVW is wrong and that this
will create no new jobs. How about on the recreation side? I
have a number of letters of support here from boating companies
that think that this is going to create recreation jobs, and
that there will be greater recreation in the area. Do you
disagree with that as well?
Mr. Stork. Yes. The boating companies agree that protection
of the National Wild and Scenic River System will help create
jobs.
Mr. Denham. I am just asking about jobs right now. I would
to at least like to nail that piece down, and see if we have
any agreement. If there is new water storage, which we have
documentation that new water storage will help with the farming
industry, and new recreation, which boating companies agree
will create jobs within the recreation industry, and new
construction, which IVW supports because they believe that it
is going to create new jobs, but somehow you don't find that
there is going to be any job impact in an area that has over 20
percent unemployment, double the Nation's average, and you
don't somehow see that there are going to be any new jobs
created?
Mr. Stork. I think you have a factual problem with your
statement. The boating companies support the National Wild and
Scenic System.
Mr. Denham. I am not stating a number right now, because I
am sure that we would dispute the number back and forth, but
any jobs?
Mr. Stork. I don't know the answer, because we are talking
about net jobs. Are you talking about net jobs or jobs in one
sector taking jobs away from another sector, because that is
the issue here.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. Mr. Kelly, in simplest terms MID is
proposing to raise a spillway by 10 feet. How much water
storage do you think this will create?
Mr. Kelly. This will create up to 70,000 acre-feet of
storage in a wet year, such as this year. Right now all of the
reservoirs in the Central Valley are spilling flood control. It
would be great to be able to capture some of that for years,
like in 2008 and the drought that we just came out of.
Mr. Denham. And 70,000 new acre-feet, I have seen very few
people other than today, and I have seen nobody else that is
disputing that this 70,000 acre-feet--well, 70,000 new acre-
feet will create how many agricultural jobs in the Central
Valley?
Mr. Kelly. Oh, gosh. Well, the U.C. Davis study that I
quoted, stated that every 100,000 acre-feet of water supports
1200 local jobs. So, roughly 70 percent of that.
Mr. Denham. And on the facility itself expanding the dam,
assuming that we get to that point, how many jobs would that
create?
Mr. Kelly. To raise the spillways that we are proposing,
that would be approximately an 18 month long project, and so a
full construction crew out there for 18 months, and as you know
construction crews in the Central Valley were pretty much shut
down with the housing crisis that we have experienced, and so I
am sure that they would look forward to that, which is why the
IVW is supporting this project.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. And the question----
Mr. Bishop. We will come back to another round for you. Mr.
Gosar, do you have questions on this bill?
Dr. Gosar. I would yield my time to Mr. Denham.
Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Gosar, and thank you, Mr. Chair.
On the flood control issue, there have been some that said that
this somehow won't control floods. Could you expand on that on
whether it will or it won't?
Mr. Kelly. Well, I would like to be very clear. This is not
a flood control project. This is a water storage project. When
we talk about it, we talk about the incidental benefits, and
there will be incidental flood control benefits, but that is
not the purpose of why we are proposing this project.
Mr. Denham. Can you explain what is happening on the Merced
River right now today?
Mr. Kelly. Well, on the Merced River right now today, we
have large amounts of snow melt coming down. The area that we
are talking about where the Wild and Scenic boundary overlap
the FERC boundary--and I could not say today because we don't
have monitors, but a couple of weeks ago, we went up there and
I don't think much has changed.
It was inundated above the 877 elevation that we are
talking about. It was at approximately 880-something, and so
that area already becomes inundated naturally. And we are
anticipating--and this is really a nervous year for reservoir
operators because of the amount of snow melt up there.
It has been fairly cool, and so it has not been coming down
a lot. There is a lot of water that is going to be coming down,
and pretty much be a waste to the ocean.
Mr. Denham. And I would agree, and I want to reach out of
the Fresno Bee, this morning's paper, that the rising Merced
River today may force some Yosemite Valley campers to higher
ground, the National Park Service says. Park officials say that
they are telling more than 1600 campers near the river about
the risk. We are currently having water flow through that area.
We are certainly in a flood type situation as we were back
in 2006, and so it is my belief that this will certainly help
us out with both of those situations, especially when in 2006
that we had to have FEMA come into the Merced area.
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir, and additional spillway capacity
height would definitely allow the Army Corps of Engineers and
all the other reservoir operators in the Central Valley to have
a little more flexibility in urgent situations like this.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. And, Mr. Stork, in your testimony,
you said that this project would inundate a free-flowing river.
We are actually talking about 1800 feet. I know that the Merced
River is much longer than 1800 feet.
And on your website, you say that this bill causes a
historic new low in the assault on the Nation's environmental
laws. Eighteen hundred feet is an assault on the Nation's
environmental laws, in an area that is already flooded today,
and has flooded several other times, and in an area that we had
to have FEMA come in and help out the County of Merced during
flood years?
Do you really believe that 1800 feet is something that is
going to be an assault on the Nation's environmental laws?
Mr. Stork. Mr. Denham, the land that is being flooded today
is the riverbed, and it is being flooded by a free-flowing
river as it was intended by the U.S. Congress.
So, no, I am not terribly concerned that water is getting a
riverbed wet. What is of concern, and we don't know the exact
numbers of the inundation area because it has not been formally
surveyed yet, but let's not worry about that. The issue is----
Mr. Denham. Well, wait a minute. I am worried about it. You
said first that you are not concerned about the jobs, which is
a huge issue in the Central Valley, and now you are not
concerned about the flooding, which we had to have FEMA come in
during 2006, and flooding right now.
And I just read you the Fresno Bee about 1600 campers that
are going to be forced to move to higher ground. We obviously
have an issue here.
Mr. Stork. Sixteen hundred campers in Yosemite Valley. Mr.
Denham, The New Exchequer Dam and the McClure Reservoir are way
downstream of the Yosemite Valley. Your project, the Merced
Irrigation Project, is not intended to reduce overbank flows in
the Merced River and Yosemite Valley.
Mr. Denham. So I will go back to the original question.
Eighteen hundred feet is all that we are talking about. You do
agree that 1800 feet is all that we are talking about here,
right?
Mr. Stork. I don't know the number, and as Mr. Kelly knows,
we are in the relicensing stage right now, and we don't know
the number specifically.
Mr. Denham. Let me ask Mr. Kelly. Are we talking about 1800
feet?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Mr. Denham. And not the entire river?
Mr. Kelly. No, sir.
Mr. Stork. For the purpose of this hearing, I will concede
1800 feet. The question is and which is in front of this
Congress, is that for the first time in the history of the
National Wild and Scenic River System, has the U.S. Congress
decided to allow a reservoir to inundate a National Wild and
Scenic River. This is the issue in front of us.
Mr. Denham. But just so I understand your position.
Regardless of the jobs, regardless of the flood control, your
issue is that if we move 5 feet, or 100 feet, or 1800 feet,
that moving it at all--if you move it a foot, then you are
infringing on a Wild and Scenic, and that could actually open
the door to other projects around the Nation?
Mr. Stork. That is correct.
Mr. Denham. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Let me ask Mr. Kelly a question of questions if
I might so that I understand this properly. First of all, what
is the status of this spillway project right now?
Mr. Kelly. The status is that we have performed some high
level feasibility analyses. We have not performed any detailed
design work due to the uncertainty of FERC being able to
consider it.
Mr. Bishop. So the current level by law is 867?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. And this would change it to 877?
Mr. Kelly. Correct.
Mr. Bishop. So you are telling me that right now it is at
almost 890?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. So naturally this occurs every so often and you
go well above the 877 level?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. It is based on the amount of snow melt
in the mountains and sometimes it just does that.
Mr. Bishop. And FERC says that any change would be messed
up simply because of the 1992 Act, and therefore an amendment
would be necessary?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. FERC cannot consider relicensing our
project above the 867 level because of the specific language in
the Act.
Mr. Bishop. So, Mr. Stork, when you say the purpose of the
Wild and Scenic River is to preserve this river for future
generations, can I ask for what?
Mr. Stork. As a free-flowing river.
Mr. Bishop. Why? How does that help future generations?
Mr. Stork. The National Wild and Scenic System's very
purpose was to protect Wild and Scenic Rivers free-flowing
rivers. That is the purpose. That was considered and still is
considered to be the purpose of that system.
Mr. Bishop. But if the free-flowing process already does
not happen--I mean, you already flooded out--what difference
does it make? What have you done to future generations?
And besides that, two years ago, we already screwed up the
Wild and Scenic River with the Tonto River project, but let's
forget that for now. What good does it do if what you are doing
is already creating a situation that does what already
happened?
Mr. Stork. I think you have a confusion in the testimony.
The reservoir is well below the spillway at this time. The
river upstream of the reservoir has water in it, and that water
has an elevation. The reservoir, the flat water, is way
downstream.
Mr. Bishop. So you just don't want the reservoir, per se?
Mr. Stork. Right. This is not the National Wild and Scenic
River Reservoir System. It is a river system.
Mr. Bishop. So even if the reservoir helps people, it is
not worth it?
Mr. Stork. Congress----
Mr. Bishop. I am sorry, even if the reservoir helps people,
it is not worth it?
Mr. Stork. There are 24 miles of the Merced River
underneath FERC licensed MID reservoirs at this time.
Mr. Bishop. Even if it helps people, it is not worth it?
Mr. Stork. It also helps people to have a National Wild and
Scenic River System.
Mr. Bishop. But even if having a reservoir helps people, it
is not worth it?
Mr. Stork. And there are 24 miles of the Merced River.
Mr. Bishop. And this is a small portion, and even if it
helps people, it is not worth it? I am sorry, but that is your
testimony; even if it helps people, it is not worth it?
Mr. Stork. The Wild and Scenic River System is.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Garamendi, you have joined us. Do you have
questions on this particular bill?
Mr. Garamendi. I do, and there is a great deal of confusion
here about what is and what isn't. First of all, the Yosemite
Valley floods periodically, and that is a different issue than
this entire issue before us.
The issue of the level of water as it enters the lake, it
is higher, and as was stated here, and it will eventually level
out as it inundates the lake. So we have two different things.
You have the water coming in and it is filling, and as it
fills, it is higher, and it is flooding beyond the normal
stream bed as it enters the lake. There is no doubt about that.
Now, what we really have here is a very, very important
national issue of whether we modify a Wild and Scenic River.
There is no doubt about it. But the real issue, the initial
issue is the question of FERC's licensing, and whether FERC can
consider in its licensing the question of raising the spillway
and generating power, additional power, and in doing so,
periodically raised the total reservoir level to 897.
And in so doing, about 1800 feet, or 1770 lineal feet, of
river will be flooded for a while, and perhaps eight weeks as I
understand it. So the question is should FERC be allowed to
proceed with its licensing and consider this modification in
the reservoir.
I assume that a NEPA and CEQA evaluation will have to be
made, and while no Federal funds are involved, we are certainly
involving a Federal issue here, and that is the Wild and Scenic
River. I don't think that has been done; is that right, Mr.
Kelly? That has not been done yet has it?
Mr. Kelly. No, sir. This would have to go through the full
NEPA process.
Mr. Garamendi. There are a lot of questions out there and a
lot of answers will be forthcoming. I know that the Bureau of
Reclamation is--excuse me, the Bureau of Land Management is
concerned about certain historic artifacts that are in this
area, such as the old railroad, and perhaps some mining claims,
and also trail access and the like, all of which is going to
have to be taken into account when the FERC study is done.
And it may very well be that FERC deems this to be an
inappropriate and not allow the 10 foot rise in the level of
the lake. That is quite possible. And if they were to allow it,
they would probably, as is their custom, require a serious
mitigation if the Wild and Scenic River law is modified.
So there are a lot of questions out there, but what I think
we really need to do here is to get answers to questions before
we modify a Wild and Scenic River legislation, and I think that
it is highly likely that this bill will pass in its present
form, which I think is premature.
And I would recommend that what the community may want to
do is simply allow FERC to conduct the studies, and the NEPA
process to go on, and let us figure out the length of time in
which the river will be inundated, and the amount or the
likelihood of it, and the effect that it would have on
vegetation riparian habitat, and on historic artifacts, Indian,
and more recent, and what mitigation might be required, and
then come back here and see whether we really want to do it
given knowledge.
Right now, we don't have the knowledge to do that, and so
Mr. Denham, I might suggest that to avoid a lot of conflict,
and not all conflict, but a lot of conflict, that instead of
waving the Wild and Scenic River, that you simply modify or
amend your bill to allow FERC to do what their study, and then
come back to the Congress and see if it is worth the concerns
that are going to be raised about allowing it to go forward.
You have about two years of study to get the NEPA and CEQA
done, and that is at least two years; is that correct?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Mr. Garamendi. Time enough to find out what the impacts
are. We don't know those impacts now. We are guessing. I know
that the Bureau of Land Management has some assessments, and
those would be part of the FERC study, as would any mitigation
that might be allowed.
My 15 minutes or 5 minutes is up, but I think that might be
a way of figuring out what all of this will mean to the area,
and then we can with that knowledge make a decision of whether
we want to change the Wild and Scenic River legislation.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Denham, do you have any further questions?
Mr. Denham. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Actually, I would like to
give Mr. Kelly an opportunity to respond to Mr. Garamendi's
concerns as far as whether we hold things up, or whether this
actually just gives FERC the opportunity to do those very
things to answer his concerns.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you. If H.R. 869 is made law, then FERC
would be able to consider the full impact of the project, and
the merits of the project, versus the impacts and the required
mitigation for it. That is pretty much what we are asking for.
Mr. Garamendi. If I might.
Mr. Bishop. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Denham. I will yield.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Denham. My point is slightly
different, and let me switch to a different microphone so that
we can communicate visually as well.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you.
Mr. Garamendi. My point is different. The bill as written
provides a permanent opportunity to flood this stretch of the
Wild and Scenic River. What I am suggesting is that we modify
the language here to allow you to go ahead with the FERC study,
and then with that information in hand, and that is the NEPA
and CEQA, as well as FERC requirements, to come back and we can
then make a decision based upon knowledge and information
gained from those studies, whether we as a Nation want to
modify for the first time ever a Wild and Scenic River.
I understand the merits. It is the process here that we are
jumping ahead of knowledge and information, and so I would just
say let's get the knowledge, and let's get the information, and
then come back to Congress and say it is really in the public
interest.
The rivers are only going to be flooded every now and then,
every 5 years, or 3 years, or whatever, for a short period of
time, and vegetation is not going to be seriously modified, and
by the way, FERC is going to require you to put a boat out
there to haul the rafters that extra half-mile so they don't
have to paddle so hard.
I mean, those are all things that are going to be in the
FERC study. You and I both know that. We have been through this
many times, and then we can say, yeah, it is not a big deal,
and we can make this simple modification, or say that it is one
big deal, and we are not about to let this go forward.
But you are going to have to do the studies anyway, and so
you are going to be through that process, and then come back to
us with that knowledge and information, and give the
opportunity for FERC to study this issue. That is my
suggestion.
Mr. Denham. I would like to reclaim my time, and Mr. Kelly,
if you would like to answer. I know that this bill would
actually give FERC the opportunity to study this. So if you
could expand on that, please.
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. Besides the environmental NEPA-CEQA
process, it would have to actually go through design review,
and I would be happy to take such suggestions to my board of
directors, but just so you understand, which I am sure that you
do, there is a huge cost in actually preparing a design and
going through that. And to expect a local agency to expend that
cost without the certainty that it could move forward would be
worrisome.
Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. I agree that any water
project that we talk about in California, there is always the
tactic to slow things down, and let's hold them up further, and
let's study them one more time.
I can't afford in my area to watch flooding continue to go
on, or ask FEMA to come back and help us one more time, nor can
I work those food lines any longer, and just tell people,
sorry, we are going to study this for a few more years. You
guys are going to have to wait until you find a job.
We have some real problems to solve in the Central Valley,
and this is one small piece of that puzzle, and I would like to
thank you for bringing this bill to us. I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Let me ask one question before I ask Mr.
McClintock if he has questions of Mr. Kelly as well. I am
assuming that you have already approached FERC as to this
situation and potential study. Has FERC told you that they are
willing to sans this legislation to do a study on what would
basically be an illegal act?
Mr. Kelly. FERC has stated that they could not consider the
project because of the legislation. I mean, because of the 1991
and 1992 legislation.
Mr. Bishop. So would they be willing to do a study,
especially if we put a specific time limit on them for
something that they don't have the power to actually conclude?
Has that been a hang-up in your conversations with FERC?
Mr. Kelly. It has come up, but it has not been resolved,
but they have stated explicitly that they cannot issue a new
license with such a project unless the law is modified.
Mr. Bishop. All right. Mr. McClintock, do you have any
questions on this particular bill?
Mr. McClintock. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. All right. Then let me ask one last question,
unless someone else has a question any more? Mr. Denham.
[Pause.]
Mr. Bishop. All right. Mr. Stork, one last question for my
own edification. Has your group ever taken or asked for access
to EGA funds?
Mr. Stork. I don't even know what that is.
Mr. Bishop. OK. I have no other questions, and unless there
is another Member that has a question, we thank the witnesses
once again for being here, and for your testimony, and I
appreciate your patience with us.
I want to thank all the witnesses, and both of those
witnesses who are still here, as well as others. We will be
contacting you, and we ask you for your written response to any
questions that are submitted in writing by Members of the
Subcommittee as time goes on there.
And if there is no further business, without any objection,
this Subcommittee will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:18 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Jeff Denham, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California
First, I would like to thank Chairman Bishop for bringing my bill,
H.R. 869, before his Subcommittee for this Legislative Hearing. As a
Representative from the West, the Chairman is very much aware of the
problems that come when dealing with an uncompromising environmental
agenda.
My legislation before the committee today is a simple, common-sense
bill that will provide for much needed water storage during wet years
in the Central Valley of California.
And, this bill has bipartisan support in Congress, from California
water organizations throughout the state, cities, counties, labor, and
recreationalists.
This past winter was considered a wet water year for California.
Currently, dams are in flood control operations and releasing thousands
of acre-feet of water due to the lack of sufficient storage.
There is a common saying to ``save for a rainy day.'' When talking
about water and agriculture, the saying needs to be tweaked a little to
read as ``save on a rainy day,'' meaning that we need to be able to
save and store the excess water in wet years for when the inevitable
drought occurs.
The Central Valley of California is home to the world's most
productive farm land. The economies of most communities in the Valley
are buoyed by the agricultural production that occurs throughout the
Valley.
I would like to submit for the record a chart that shows a direct
correlation to jobs and the amount of water that the Central Valley
receives. It clearly shows that a lack of water means that there is a
lack of employment opportunities.
My district continually suffers from unacceptably high
unemployment. Currently unemployment is hovering around 18 percent,
which is about double of the national average.
We are dependent on water for jobs, communities to be sustainable,
and livelihoods of farming operations.
H.R. 869 is as simple a piece of legislation that can be drafted to
create desperately needed water storage.
Simply stated, the bill will allow for the Merced Irrigation
District to raise the level of Lake McClure by 10 feet for 60 days
during a wet water year.
With this legislation, the Merced Irrigation District will apply
for relicensing with FERC with the proposed spillway modification
included in their application. Their application will still be subject
to full FERC review process once the application is filed.
This legislation will provide up to 70,000 acre-feet of additional
water, which can serve 1,700 homes and generate roughly 10,000
megawatts of clean, renewable electricity on an annual basis.
There is no simpler or more logical a proposal to create jobs and
much needed water storage where both are so greatly needed.
Let me also inform this committee that this legislation will not
cost any state or federal funds.
Again, let me thank Chairman Bishop for bringing H.R. 869 before
this committee, and let me thank Mr. Bryan Kelly for flying out from
the Merced Irrigation District to help fully convey what this bill does
and how much it is needed.
______
[The prepared statement of Mr. Larsen follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Washington (WA-02)
Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva, I would like to thank
you for including H.R. 1740 as part of today's hearing. This
legislation, and its companion bill, S. 888, introduced by Senator
Patty Murray, would designate portions of Illabot Creek in Skagit
County, Washington, as a component of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
Illabot Creek travels from the Glacier Park Wildness Area to the
upper Skagit River, falling 7,000 feet during its journey. The water of
Illabot Creek provides the optimal conditions for wild Chinook salmon,
steelhead and bull trout, species listed as threatened.
My legislation will designate 14.3 miles of Illabot Creek as Wild
and Scenic, protecting the strong character of the water for species
promulgation while ensuring that hunting and fishing and other
recreational activities continue.
I was very pleased when this same legislation was unanimously
agreed to in the full Natural Resources Committee last year, and when
it was passed by voice vote in the full House. H.R. 1740 reflects the
changes adopted by the committee to more specifically designate the
area included within the bill.
I would like to thank Lisa Bellefond of The Nature Conservancy for
testifying on behalf of the legislation. The Nature Conservancy, along
with local elected officials, environmentalists, fisherman,
agriculturists and others came together in this effort and we are
hopeful to see it move through the process and reach completion.
Thank you again for holding this hearing on H.R. 1740, and for the
opportunity to provide this testimony.